Does America really need projection power in this day and age?

Gunboat Diplomacy?

Do note that with the advent of regional powerbrokers, that won't work. Brazil handles South America, India handles the subcontinent, Russia handles the former East Bloc, EU handles Western Europe. The one place where that would work is Africa, and the US doesn't help them out in any way as it is.

^^^ The same way we pay for everything: Taxes. Problem is, everything else spends too much in comparison to 11 supercarriers. How much good on the world stage does Social Security do? None. How much good does the corrupt welfare system do? None. How much humanitarian aid does the EPA's Luddite regulations do? None. US military force projection capabilities are the leader in world humanitarian missions.

edited 11th Nov '11 12:00:53 PM by MajorTom

We the People of the United States are the singular responsibility of our government, and to hell with the rest of the world if it thinks they rate higher than that. I'll scrap the military wholesale before I decide the government's job is to be babysitter for the rest of the world—leaving the people of this country to rot at the hands of the corporations in the process.

This.

We should be helping our own people before even considering to help those in other countries. A fraction of the money spent of the military could fix a lot of problems, like the crumbling infrastructure. But noooooo, bigger and more guns are clearly more important than the American people.

We need to keep the country safe. The military does that.

No, a defensive military does that. Since when was the last time projection power prevented a war against an imperial power (the previous owners of such power)? Never.

Having a broken ass country with mass poverty and people with no education, yeah I think that does in fact hamper your ability to perform in the international world. You don't need projection power, you need sound domestic policies.

You're willing to scrap healthcare, social security and welfare in favour of supporting supercarrier fleets? I think I'll call this philosophy military welfare state.

There is another country that spends most of its budget on the military to protect their people at the cost of that people, who fight to gain control of other countries and territories to safeguard their own. That country?

That's Pakistan. The Punjabi Military Empire of Pakistan.

tom: I am sorry but you are way off base. Social Security and Welfare which by way numerous people have quite merrily shot your theories and views full of holes are to supposrt the citizens in times of need. The U.S. does not need 11 aircraft carriers. We have been over the various reasons why time and time again.

The expenditures on social programs are nothing compared to the totals spent on military spending. 11 aircraft carriers require some serious money to run, crew, maintain and sail. That is when they are running normally. This isn't even accounting for the aircraft on the ships which cost millions apiece.

If you need to replace bits because they broke or are out of date that cost goes up. Refuelling nuclear reactors is not cheap either. We could cut our carrier force in 1/2 and still project nearly 3 times the power of any nation on earth with them.

We don't need 11.

@bread a deffense military never keeps the enemy away, It defeats them when it comes to attack, which automatically means damdge to to civilian targets. This potentially means exposing our industry and commerical centers too attack.

We don't NEED anything more then food and water. But too keep the country safe and we need a good number of carrier too keep us safe. We could make due with less, but 11 keeps us ahead by a healthy margin.

edited 11th Nov '11 6:30:26 PM by Joesolo

Yet having the carriers did nothing to stop 9/11. Also, what good do they do when our internal problems are far more damaging to the country than the ones from foreign sources?

The biggest threat to America right now is America itself.*

11 carriers is the Navy thinking a decade or so in the past. Especially with this fixiation on big top carriers. The Alligator navy is one thing but the way we use our carriers is another.

The point of the two programs is one is to help you in retirement the other is if something bad happens the proverbial shit hitting the fan and keep you from suffering and dieing on the streets.

Other areas we can take some cutting shears two is the airforce. The variety of crap projects and problem high dollar planes has made a noted impact on the military landscape. Other pet projects like the Osprey and army future soldier program. We are not spending smartly we are just throwing money around at boondoggles the politicians are too stupid or too corrupt to ok when they should be shown the door.

Some projection is necessary to make a good defense viable. However we do not need the power to stomp into every country at a moments notice. I prefer Smedly Butler's take on the use of the American Military to how we run it now.

I want reiterate we should never take away the benefits we offer for military service. The cost of their benefits is paltry compared to some other expenses. The benefits are usually earned sometimes the very hard way. I am definetly not going to yank the bennies of a guy who has lost a limb, was injured, or suffers some malady from some foreign hell hole we sent them to.

Then why is the budget and all expenditures in total favor social spending at a minimum 2 to 1 rate? (Seriously read the public records.) The military budget is not 25% of all US Federal expenditures. Yet people complain like it is the other way around.

Right the military budget is just 20% of the Federal Budget.

20 percent aren't that bad though.

Yes, but is the military budget was cut by 50% we would still be outspending the next 5 biggest militaries on the planet.

@Joesolo

Bread and water huh? Yeah, then you'll have a problem putting down your own people "for their own good". America's enemies won't have to do a damned thing.

Like I said, this is Pakistan/Soviet stratocrat logic. It. Doesn't. Work.

Tom, the biggest "expenditure" in the social spending budget, Social Security, pays for itself. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly. How much of our military budget pays for itself?

Not according to the CBO anymore. The SS fund is no longer in the black.

The military pays for itself in the tangible things it gives the country and the world. Between disaster relief and humanitarian missions (and curbing things like piracy which wreak havoc on the global economy), there's also the fact everybody in the services enlisted and officer pays taxes and gets paid and thus participates in the economy. People like you act like it's a complete moneysink with no tangible benefit like all soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen are unpaid slaves brainwashed by propaganda doing nothing but killing brown people the world over and that we waste money on nothing but fighter projects like the F-35. (Don't pull the strawman charge, that's exactly the tone many people like you come across as.)

Social Security was supposed to accumulate funds (like a retirement account) while in the Black to deal with times when it would be in the Red. However those funds didn't accumulate because any surplus was spent on other stuff the government was doing, like the military.

Except it was never built nor planned that way. The plan was built in the 1930s where old people were outnumbered by younger folks 5 to 1 or more. Today the number of retirees to workers is nearly 1 to 1. Basically it was set up like a textbook Ponzi scheme even if SS itself isn't one. It couldn't rely on finding a constantly booming and eternally young population.

There was no accumulating. People pay into today to pay today's workers. That was true at its inception in 1933 and never changed.

edited 12th Nov '11 7:38:19 AM by MajorTom

When Social Security began the money workers paid in would pay for those receiving the benefits, and since there were more workers than retirees back then there would be a surplus of funds. That surplus was supposed to be saved for the future, but was taken out of the program to pay for other stuff the government was doing at the time.

Workers paying in today are paying for today's retirees because yesterday's politicians couldn't be bothered to save a buck.

@FF, physically, you need nothing but food water and air. Yes, too be successful you need more, and more means your more successful. Carriers help with that,providing us with the ability to strike at any target with more airpower than many countries.

edited 12th Nov '11 8:16:18 AM by Joesolo

Guys, SS is off topic.

@Tom - Your strawman charge (and it is one, since it doesn't apply to what I've been saying [none of my comments were directed at the rank and file, instead focusing on their misuse] and I happen to disagree with you) is based on the assumption that there are no other navies in the world. There are, and they handle their own affairs just fine. If America hung back, other navies would (and have) move forward. It also presumes that all the humanitarian work could only be done by a carrier, which is also not true. Hospital ships have more of a humanitarian use than full size carriers. amphibious landing ships/helicopter carriers are even more useful, since more of them can be built for cheaper.

@Joesolo - Carriers do not bring food or prosperity. They just project the state's power. Those two are not the same thing, as I have been arguing. You can have a powerful/large/useful/professional military without the public getting the benefits of it (especially since, any benefits that could be had would then be cut in favor of even more military). There has to be a balance, and the US currently is disbalanced radically in the military-industrial complex's (seperate from the rank and file of the military itself) favor.

@Tom

Rich is 100% correct. The eventual temporary boom of more older folks than younger was foreseen, built, and planned for, but Congress squandered the funds.

@Joesolo

Protecting the US from threats abroad doesn't matter one iota if the people being protected are suffering from far more immediate economic and domestic threats caused by lack of domestic spending.

edited 12th Nov '11 8:35:12 AM by Jeysie

Actually, being alive and having economic problems is much better then letting dictators build nuclear weapons and killing us all. Plus, as the stimulus proved, money dosn't solve all our issues.