Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Military Spending Poll


The Blood
 Share

Military Spending Poll  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe US military spending should be increased, decreased, or maintained at current levels?

    • Heavily increased
    • Modestly increased
    • Maintained at current levels
    • Modestly decreased
    • Heavily decreased


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

I wonder how results would have been different pre Feb. 2022. I think mine would have been the same (for the US), but I now have a greater sense that the NATO members not meeting their 2% quota should be meeting it.

My position was no different prior to Feb. 2022. That's largely because I thought such an event is indeed no ''That's never gonna happen'' scenario. And I strongly believe the best way to counter those trying to take over the Free World and to suppress it like their own countries, is to arm yourself heavily. That includes that each Western and trustworthy nation should possess nuclear weapons. The saddest thing is, Ukraine actually had them after the fall of the Soviet Union but gave it back to Russia, just because people thought it would cool to disarm peacefully. In a perfect world I would support that, but with some countries there will never be a perfect world, so no... disarmament and non-proliferation is no option for me. The rogue nations, and here I deliberately invoke a term I highly support, the Axis of Evil will never walk the line of peace with us. Therefore we as the opposition to their terror regimes cannot and should not as well.. If Ukraine still had had their nuclear weapons this invasion would not have happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

I wonder how results would have been different pre Feb. 2022. I think mine would have been the same (for the US), but I now have a greater sense that the NATO members not meeting their 2% quota should be meeting it.

Pre Feb. 2022 I probably would've said modestly decrease. In a time of peace I'd be fine getting us down to that 2% quota, if a little higher. But in times like these, patriotism comes out and my NATO-warrior in me goes hard 😛 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rezi said:

Pre Feb. 2022 I probably would've said modestly decrease. In a time of peace I'd be fine getting us down to that 2% quota, if a little higher. But in times like these, patriotism comes out and my NATO-warrior in me goes hard 😛 

Greatest country in the world moment

A7B9242F-A91A-463A-B141-6561AE932ADA.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have been more open to at least maintaining spending levels contingent on an audit, the DoD is a massive bureaucracy with a sprawling budget, and I would have wanted to identify and target any and all instances of waste, fraud, and abuse that we could find, but even apart from the war in Ukraine, it's become clear over the past year and some change that our enemies have been emboldened and that calls for an increase in defense spending in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

I may have been more open to at least maintaining spending levels contingent on an audit, the DoD is a massive bureaucracy with a sprawling budget, and I would have wanted to identify and target any and all instances of waste, fraud, and abuse that we could find, but even apart from the war in Ukraine, it's become clear over the past year and some change that our enemies have been emboldened and that calls for an increase in defense spending in my view.

This is similar to my view. We should obviously look to cut out waste wherever we can, but we seem to be transitioning out of the era of nation building in the Middle East, our military's main role in the future will be to deter and check the expansion of the totalitarian great powers we face, Russia and China. This doesn't mean just throwing more money at the DOD, it means channeling our resources into technological development and research to ensure we have a consistent and comprehensive edge over our adversaries. It means strengthening our ties with NATO and making it a bulwark against further Russian aggression. And of course, it means arming and supporting Ukraine and any other countries which may find themselves on the defender's side of a war of aggression and expansionism. I believe we should enter a new age of foreign policy. Not of occupation or nation building abroad, but of deterrence and readiness. Combatting expansionism abroad and ensuring we maintain a ready and advanced armed forces capable of providing support to threatened nations and standing firmly against the totalitarian regimes of Russia and China. This really isn't arguing for ballooning military spending, it's arguing that we have the resources and funds for a prepared, vigilant military ready to support peace and democracy abroad. I haven't supported a lot of recent US foreign policy, I'm not a neocon by any means and I don't believe prolonged military interventions are the correct use of our armed forces. But we may very well not be in the era of nation building any longer, and we need to be prepared for whatever the future may bring in a new era of foreign developments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Augustus, Napoleon, and Palpatine all transformed a Republic into an absolutist Empire with fanfare, applause, and great support. You two sound like you'll be cheering, likewise, when you're Republic has it's death certificate formally written.

There will be thunderous applause!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

 The United States is no more trustworthy or benevolent as a global leader than Russia or China. 

I simply disagree, I personally think committing genocide against Uyghurs or Ukrainians makes China and Russia far less trustworthy and benevolent than nation-states that are not committing genocides. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

There's more to these things than overt genocide. Genocide, while very egregious and horribly unacceptable, is simply not the ONLY high crime a nation with military ambitions can be judged for. Such a statement is superficial and sensationalist. Just because a nation hasn't committed genocide since directly enabling, supporting, arming, and funding the Guatemalan, Salvadorian, and Pinochet ones in the '70's and '80's does not automatically make the U.S. Government more trustworthy or benevolent in aggregate. Body count simply isn't the sole indicator, or even necessary majority one, of a rotten regime, and people have to stop make narrowly-focused arguments that pivot on that.

Nah I think genocide is not apt for comparisons because it is pretty uniquely bad, in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DakotaHale said:

Greatest country in the world moment

A7B9242F-A91A-463A-B141-6561AE932ADA.png

I would cut it down to the 500 billion mark, possibly even the 400 billion mark. I could feasibly get talked out of this if doing so hampers quality of life domestically, since my entire presidential agenda would focus on quality of life to elevate it towards or beyond that of the Scandinavian countries. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DakotaHale said:

I wonder how results would have been different pre Feb. 2022. I think mine would have been the same (for the US), but I now have a greater sense that the NATO members not meeting their 2% quota should be meeting it.

My vote would not have changed.  The US should spend far less on the military.

  • Thanks 1
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, laugh, @Pringles. Show, all the more, your utter lack of introspection, self-knowledge, and personal responsibility, and the need to blame someone else for everything, and the inability to admit being wrong, no matter how much of a fool who have to make yourself. Show off your child-like traits on full display for everyone to see.

image.png.98c1ece2bb5a2c5875308831bd90ae45.png

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Patine said:

Turkey (even though they notably exceed 2%) should be dropped as the weak link and the untrustworthy liability who does not share the values or ideals of the rest of NATO. Erdogan's policies, tactics, and agendas are about on par with Putin's - he just doesn't have the military or political resources or scope of power to do what Putin does.

Then again,  Turkey and Greece in NATO together have brought some semblance of stability to the Balkan region. Yugoslavia's dissolution notwithstanding. 

Not being an expert, are there mechanisms for forced removal from the alliance or is it purely voluntary like France dropping its military commitments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...