jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (9 posts)

We have the smallest military ever. Do you feel we need to increase this?

  1. iggy7117 profile image81
    iggy7117posted 21 months ago

    We have the smallest military ever. Do you feel we need to increase this?

    I feel this was part of Obama's plan to set us up for a take over, our military forces are the smallest we ever had while being involved in a ten year war overseas and terrorists on our soil.
    The logical next step would be to limit the available guns the citizens would have, can you see this. Do you feel we need to increase the military and arm ourselves better? 


  2. Ken Burgess profile image89
    Ken Burgessposted 21 months ago

    You are partly correct, undermine the military, compromise the military, allow their secrets to be accessed by foreign nations, allow our technological advantage to stagnate... stop funding for new parts to be procured for the jets and tanks we do have, etc.

    Meanwhile the Chinese get stronger, expand... the Russians do the same... Iran through its funding of Hamas, ISiS, etc. does the same.

    However, our police force has been increased dramatically... there are triple the amount of police and security forces that we had a decade ago, and they obviously aren't being used at the borders... so one has to wonder what they are being used for.

  3. profile image59
    peter565posted 21 months ago

    This is a yes and no question, are we aiming for quantity or quality. If it is more leaning towards quantity, then we need more troops, but the soldiers are usually ill trained and ill discipline. If we are going for quality, then what we need is elite, well trained and well equip warrior, such as special forces, but this take more money and more time to train. Currently, an average soldier take three months to train, while special forces soldiers such as Navy Seal, take up to one year to train, some other special forces could take up to two years to train and it cost a lot of money to train them. During WW2 and WW1 there are even less elite soldiers, during WW1 the less elite British soldiers only take 1 week to train, while the Chinese during WW2 also had a huge quantity of less elite soldiers, these soldiers only take one weekend to train. However, these british and Chinese soldiers were ill trained and ill discipline, the officers leading them into battle are frequently frustrated by their ill training. They existed, due to the huge casualty on the front line and the need to quickly have reinforcement troops.

    The defense budget is limit so, it is whether u want to use that money to train a smaller but more elite army or a large but less elite army. U can't have it both way. Currently, most countries today, are moving towards smaller but more elite, this is mostly because, the armor today is so good, soldiers are hard to kill, so they can keep sending the same elite soldier back onto the front line, again and again, during the older day, it was more about quantity, because they had no armor, if u get shot, u are dead. And it didn't make sense to spend so much money to train an elite soldier, if he can be killed with one shot. Today, with better armor, it make more sense to have a smaller more elite army going into battle with super hard to kill armor, then to have a larger but more ill trained army. (A single special forces soldier, is worth an entire platoon, of ordinary soldiers.)

  4. Alternative Prime profile image74
    Alternative Primeposted 21 months ago

    Yup, it's a "PLAN to Set us Up for a Take-OVER" ~ lol ~ And some people Wonder WHY the Republican Party is GONE, Obsolete ~

    WHY a "Take-OVER" anyway? Why not just Destroy AMERICA which is EXACTLY what "Delusional Donald" would have done by "Defaulting" on OUR National DEBT, Arming Saudi Arabia with NUKEs, and Proclaiming Climate CHANGE is a MYTH ~ Looking for a TRUE ANTI-American who would have done GENUINE Permanent DAMAGE to the United STATES? "Drumpfy" Trump was your guy but unfortunately due to his Irrational Psychological Tendencies & Behavior, OVERT Racism, HATE for Hispanics and ALL other Minorities and a virtual plethora of other reasons including Legal ISSUEs, he can NEVER Become OUR President ~

    1. iggy7117 profile image81
      iggy7117posted 21 months agoin reply to this

      I do not claim any political party, I am a realist. But notice how quick you are to judge me and divert the attention off the real issues. BTW, a muslim take over would destroy us, they want us dead. Side with them while they  behead you. Its war...

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image82
    Kathleen Cochranposted 21 months ago

    We've been at war for 15 years with the smallest military we've had since before WWII.  We enjoyed more than 35 years of relative peace from 1974-2001 with the largest, best equipped military we've ever had (all volunteer).  What conclusions can be drawn from these facts?

    1. Alternative Prime profile image74
      Alternative Primeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      The Most ELABORATE Terrorist Attacks have occured under Republicans ~ 911 during George W Bush's Disasterous Tenure in which 3,000 of OUR Brothers & Sisters Perished, Reagans Catastrophes etc ~ We have entered a "Special Forces" Phase of HISTORY

  6. Johnny James A profile image76
    Johnny James Aposted 21 months ago

    The issue we have here is several. (1) We have a volunteer military.  What I mean by this is that unlike other countries in the world we do not have a mandatory military service requirement.  Our troops sign up to become soldiers and so even if monies were expanded for more troops we would be limited to the lesser of the increased funding or increased recruits (unless the draft is re-instituted). (2) The money to fund an increase in the military. The U.S. already has a budget where money is set aside for interest on the debt; and other mandatory spending per the rules. The discretionary spending, of which military is a part of, is where one would need to look into.  For 2015 the Federal Budget was 3.8 trillion; however, only 1.1 trillion is discretionary (amount which can be moved around easily by Congress). Military takes up over 53% of discretionary spending as it is per GAO. No other area takes up more than 6.54% by itself.  In order to beef up the military you would need to raise taxes, or go after a discretionary spending in another area. That being said, one may not need to increase the military in terms of personnel so long as the technology is continually being updated.  A lot more unmanned weaponry and scouting vehicles are being used. Also, from the last Gulf War efforts we are really learning how difficult the logistics are in moving heavy machinery. Much of the ISIS military hardware is former US military gear which the Iraqi soldier were supposed to keep but then abandoned. As long as the military hardware is sufficient to protect I am ok with a smaller military.  That being said, the military needs to do a better job of monitoring subcontractors.  There have been several high profile blunders in missing deadlines, technology not being ready or shoddy workmanship.

    http://www.navytimes.com/story/military … /81600432/

  7. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 21 months ago

    No, we can't afford it. Stop policing the world and protect your own borders.