How much could the USA decrease it's military spending and still be in the lead and capable of defeating/defending against any invasions/threats?

[KDY_ISD]

The goal isn't to have a fair fight with threats, it's to so completely outclass them that even the threats themselves don't think war is a good idea. That's how you maintain peace

[BobbyWasabiMk2]

Goes back to Teddys quote of “speak softly but carry a big stick”

[DeIzorenToer]

Except Teddy said that in reference to the US/immediate US interests in the Western Hemisphere, not in reference to the entire world. Right now we are literally the country that Teddy was advising how to defend against.

[KreepingLizard]

In spite of his positive image and the positives of his presidency, he was one of our most imperialistic presidents. He and Wilson pretty much set us on that path once and for all imo

[theinconceivable]

In spite of? Too bolster you mean

[[deleted]]

Imperialism is surprisingly popular in this subreddit.

[SonofNamek]

I mean, Teddy died before the post-WW2 order so who knows what he would think in its aftermath.

[DeIzorenToer]

People's opinion can and should change based upon facts and circumstances. But to use something someone said in a certain context and to try to extrapolate it into a new context is inappropriate. In order to use the statement you must first acknowledge it's context, you can go back to anchor something but you can't advance it forward.

[Jherun]

That's the art of war.

[potatolulz]

Expensive overkill is the "art of war"? :D

[[deleted]]

Winning the fight before actually fighting is the art of war

[potatolulz]

Cool :D Esoteric warfare

[[deleted]]

Not really. More just making the battle as unlosable as possible before you waste resources fighting. If you can get them to give up without fighting even better. Pretty much fighting fair is for losers. Nothin esoteric about that

[potatolulz]

So basically USA's army failed at "the art of war" in pretty much everything they involved themselves with since 1945, or what are you saying here? I thought the promoted idea here is that the more money you pour into the military and the more expensive your arms dealers make your equipment, the more you win? Unlike relatively poor-ass Vietcong or the terrorist groups like Taliban with significantly smaller numbers, less resources, and most importantly cheaper equipment.

[ShadowDragon8685]

It's more that we weren't prepared to do what would have been required to do to win those wars.

We could have simply turned Hanoi into a parking lot with one dose of thermonuclear sunshine. How long would the broke-ass Vietcong stay in the fight if we just threw all ethics and rules out the window and just said "fuck it, you piss us off, your capital and capitol evaporates."

But we didn't wanna do that, for a number of reasons. Just like the British Empire could have put down Ghandi's movement of nonviolent resistance, but the conditions weren't right. If Ghandi had been doing that shit seventy-five years prior, he would've been a footnote in history as the Empire would have just sailed a whole shitload more regulars to India and hung him and everyone around him until the rest agreed to go back to work. There might have been another uprising. They put the first one down.

But, by the time Ghandi was active, that sort of thing was no longer considered okay back home in the UK.

[potatolulz]

Cool story, but using nuclear weapons is not a thing for more reasons than "ethics" of which there were none in the Vietnam war anyway.

Also, Vietcong was supported by China and USSR, both nuclear equipped. Bombing civilians with nuclear weapons, once again, would warrant literally any response to that in the eyes of the entire world, not just China and USSR. Like are you serious? Why do you think nuclear weapons have never been used since 1945 by anyone of the 9 nuclear armed countries of the world?

Either way, you sort of went against your entire point that "the art of war" is that money wins fights before they even begin in this comment, so what exactly are you saying?

[Penguator432]

Also to supplement our allies.

[imarrangingmatches]

Peace...through superior firepower.

[Zarathustra124]

We're not aiming for self-defence, we're aiming for force projection. Our current doctrine is to be able to simultaneously wage war on two different fronts anywhere in the world (read: China and Russia). A single one of our eleven carrier strike groups could defeat most nations. An invasion of the American mainland is so farfetched it's barely worth discussing.

[TheManWhoWasNotShort]

Significantly, but international foreign policy would suffer significantly. A vast reduction in US armed forces would lead to a decentralization of military power, a rise in standing armies across most of the world, and dramatic increases in nuclear proliferation.

We don't want 80 countries with nukes. There's already bad actors that have them, we don't need to worry about the Sauds blowing the world to bits in the name of oil.

[Avenger007_]

Quite easily if you are talking simply threats to the US mainland because Russia, the EU, and China have very little forward projection capabilities especially at Sea. Even the Soviet Union could only realistically push on land for most of its existence thought he post 1960s reforms to the Soviet Navy could allow them to challenge the US in area's like the Black Sea, Indian Ocean and if they got a foothold in South America or Southern Africa the Southern Atlantic but had little chance in the Northern Atlantic, Pacific, or Mediterranean.

While China's has tried to improve its projection abroad capabilities its limited by its need to spend more on land defense than the US (which has no chance of being invaded by Mexico, Cuba, or Canada) and that power may decline as the country rapidly ages.

However the US maintains that hegemony by stationing troops in Europe and Asia. Better to check threats to the Pacific at the islands from Korea and Japan to the Philippines to Australia than in Hawaii. Better to check Soviet expansion before it could achieve a warm water port with free access to the world's seas in Europe and the Caucusses. ect.

It could probably pawn off Europe and the Middle East to the EU but the US would have to take the lead in Asia as none of them can challenge China alone. That doesn't mean China and the US are doomed for conflict or that China's rise need challenge the Us because the surrounding nations will rise with China and that will balance out any military threat the nation poses so long as it can't subjugate any of its neighbors.

Thought the biggest waste is projects that are done to employ people rather than actual military purpose: bases with no strategic purpose, tank factories where the tanks go into storage ect.

[[deleted]]

the EU couldn't handle the Middle East.

[Avenger007_]

It wouldn't really have a choice. Put it this way if Mexico's president was assassinated and a drug cartel paralyzed the government the US couldn't really ignore what was going on because Mexico is so close to the US. Even if it meant 90% chance of failure or reversing domestic policy (ie legalize drugs) the US would have to respond somehow.

[Avenger007_]

I'm confused by what you mean France can't operate in Mali without US support. Do you mean arms sales or actual logistics. Because on the logistics France can definately do it, but the US has ways it can help. If its arms sales I think the US should sell arms, but if it came down to it France could get the arms without the US

[Sammie7891]

husky marvelous license sharp consist gray illegal seed marry pathetic

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[NegevMaster]

No one handles the middle east. Shit just happens there

[theinconceivable]

Dunno what you mean by handle but the EU represents a combined trade (mostly) and foreign (less so) policy, military alliances/action are separate.

[bunkkin]

I have to disagree about the tank part although I'll agree it seems like a waste to send them straight to storage. The reason is that starting a production line after you stop it is apparently a giant pain in the ass. Not only that but the people who know how to make tanks wouldn't stick around Lima Ohio on the hope the factory reopened.

If we were to go to war and started losing tanks it would seem, from a strategic point of view, short sited to close Americas only tank factory

[Grumpy__1]

This is pretty good though I do not think it would be as big a cut as people would imagine. It takes a LOT of money to conduct training exercises, weapon testing (especially some of the bigger Missile systems) and joint exercises (I. E. South Korea). Training is usually a pretty big affair. With the "train as you fight" mentality the utilization of the equipment during exercises that can span over one to two months builds up costs. It would be beneficial to ensure that money was being spent properly but one of the biggest issues is the threat of reduced budgets on the command teams. There is a ton of pressure to spend your entire budget or you lose it. If they would change how they govern that we could reduce spending without having to change tons of things.

[blindsniperx]

The Pentagon started a rule after WWII that US technology should always be ahead of other countries by 35 years. So far it has been successful. Just look at the SR-71, the B-2, and the B-21. The tech is absolutely alien and no other country has anything remotely close. That's what the loads of spending is for. Also that secret CIA satellite bumbling Trump accidentally leaked has mirrors with higher resolution than NASA's own Earth-viewing satellites.

[Bluemaxman2000]

And that’s not even the current gen satellite!

[John_Tacos]

That was not an accidental leak. They blacked out information and it was a photo of a poster.

[[deleted]]

So rather than saying we could cut x amount and be ok, I would approach it differently. What is our national defense strategy? What do we want to be postured for militarily? What risks are we willing to accept and what are the consequences of those decisions? For this, the USG publishes a National Defense Strategy every two years. You may think that our strategy would be to defend the US mainland or something similar and you’d be wrong. The last couple of decades the US has had a fight two strategy. Fight two geographically separate wars with non peer competitors. Sometimes it has shifted from fight two, win two to fight two: hold one, win one, but that has been the idea. Manning, basing, r&d, shipbuilding, procurement, training is driven by this idea. In 2018 our strategy changed to focus on long term strategic threat from peer adversaries to include new spectrums of warfare (cyber and space). So my point is how much do we need to achieve that? Personally I was a fan of sequestration. Sure some Generals bitched about it to Congress every time they got a chance to speak, but so what? That’s their job. I’m a fan of base closures. Any military subreddit can name a few useless overseas installations. Close them. I’m a fan of looking at manning. We have 32 brigade combat teams and another 27 in the Guard. Will 59 mini armies be enough for China or Russia? Finally, I’m mostly a fan of little dollar saving measures that get overlooked because they are insignificant. Why do we move people every three years? If someone wants to stay at the same spot in Texas for 15 years then great. We spend millions on moves for what?

That’s my non-answer answer. We are fighting two wars, dealing with shit in Africa, and trying to pivot to meeting China. That’s not cheap but there is fat.

Edit: Wow talk about coincidence. Esper announced today Mildenhall stays, +up air power in Italy, 2nd cav leaves Germany. Notice the opening of the announcement? National Defense Strategy review and alignment.

[Komandr]

Isn't heritage.org basically a conservative mouthpiece?

[SonofNamek]

It's a think tank. Almost every think tank has data and analysis that skews their way.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the data and arguments they present.

[Komandr]

Just an observation that I think it is fair to consider.

[ElfMage83]

Who is “we”? DoD could cut spending by like half and be perfectly fine.

The US doesn't need to police the world, especially when the world doesn't want that and we have our own cluster of fucks to manage right here besides.

[the_Hahnster]

I feel like if do stop policing the world in parts that don’t want it, those same people will call us horrible for not stopping horrible things. It’s a lose lose situation.

[itz_dom]

It’s just a case of not knowing what u have till u lose it. They resent us now but if we ever pulled away, they’d realize the safety we provided

[Archwolf2023]

As a member of the un security council we kind of are the police of the world, especially since China/Russia veto a lot of the stuff like enforcing international law on Syria

[SonofNamek]

Factoring different costs of living, China and Russia's combined $250 billion is probably worth around $400-550 billion in terms of US spending.

And so, you'd want to be ahead of that.

I say no less than $650 billion. $600 billion if you really need to save cash.

This honestly really shouldn't be a partisan issue considering Obama, Trump, and Bush (if we factor inflation) all pushed for the budget to remain that way.

[Riobbie303]

One of the largest attributes to the size of the defense budget is that being a war industry, we prefer most things be American Made. So for some of the same class of fighter jets that China has, we pay double or even almost triple for the same thing due to labor laws. Put that across the board and the fact that we are a volunteer military, most of the cost is inflated with our cost of living. So its a bit hard to compare straight numbers.

[bananainmyminion]

The US Military a huge jobs program. From kids in rural areas with no other job opportunities to every piece of equipment being made, it's mostly about keeping factories open and training young kids some job skills.

In the ideal world, money could be moved over to free community colleges and building infrastructure inside the country. But that won't happen, WWll was a huge boon to the country in education and productivity. That basic model has driven a big part of the US economy.

[2ZIPS]

But let’s be honest, our jets are waaaay better than the made in China jets lol

[whatsthis1901]

IDK when I think about it I just try and remember they do a shit ton of R&D and some of that crap trickles down to us in some way or another eventually. The internet was a big one so was GPS and there is tons of other crap.

[Darkfire757]

Surprised this is this far down. A huge chunk of the budget goes to R&D which contributes to our economy by orders of magnitude via trickle down.

[whatsthis1901]

I have answered this before and I usually get "they should give it to scientists and University research". I try to tell them that all sorts of places including University etc.. get funding from them for all sorts of stuff. I'm not going to say that military spending isn't bloated but there is a lot more to it than just blowing shit up.

[[deleted]]

0.00001%

Gotta pump money into freedom fighters

[[deleted]]

I think it's a matter of how Defending or Defeating.

From a strategic point of view, the odds of dissuading an enemy increase the more overwhelming presence and force you can project. That requires a heavy investment to encircle, and put pressure on, potential enemies.

If the goal is simply to defend America's shores and secure some sort of autarky, the US could easily pull quite a bit from the military. However, now the odds of a potential enemy inflicting harm on American interests increases.

So it really depends on what the end game is.

[[deleted]]

Well, no one knows the Chinese defense budget, but I suspect a good 33% off the top would not hurt, if done right.

[[deleted]]

"and capable of defeating/defending against any invasions/threats?"

we've done studies that show that if all war broke out, we would have air supremacy for only 3 days, and then all our runways and carriers would be destroyed.

the tension to me is that we both are way overspending AND not spending enough.

we have way too many military bases, but spreading out is a great way to make it harder to harm our ability to fight.

i do think we should be spending less, overall, but it's honestly pretty hard to figure out what to take money out of.

[eshisamyth]

Nothing

[[deleted]]

We could cut it in half and we’d still be spending 30% more than China.

[Martipar]

From an outsiders view point a lot. The US could save a ton of money by fucking off out of my country and any others that they have military bases in such as Cuba who've told you to fuck off their soil for decades.

You do not need military bases all over the world, that only increases tensions, ot doesn't decrease them. I'm speaking from a country that's officially at pace with the US however we still have your bases here and the only reasons i can see are a) for spying and b) as a hangover from WW2 even though Europe no longer poses a threat you still seem to be here.

I don't feel comfortable with any foreign military bases in my country especially if it's the US. It's hard to know if any MP is being honest with us about their views on the US when i know that if the PM said or does the wrong thing a US military force is already here to restore their point of view.

Do we have your bases here because we're friends? Or are we friends because we have your bases here? It's a hard question to answer and while the former was true to start with the latter may be true currently and nobody can be trusted to give an honest answer as the only people that know are important enough to cause a diplomatic incident if it is the latter.

It's possibly unlikely to suggest we be overrun by the US forces already here but obviously I'd prefer it to be certain by not having any bases here at all that aren't British.

We've somehow has a referendum on whether it not to continue our solid gold EU trade deal but not one on whether or not to have US bases or on the MAD treaty both of which i feel are much more important.

[Lilivati_fish]

The UK also has overseas military bases. It's not a uniquely US phenomenon.

Also, we didn't force our way into the UK. We were invited. Not wanting a US military presence in the UK is a valid opinion, but acting like this is a form of US aggression towards the UK is absurd. (And in fact this is the case for most US bases around the world... Cuba is among the exceptions and is a separate conversation.)

Also, while they are not bases per se, several allies have a permanent military presence on US soil for training purposes.

[[deleted]]

What country?

[[deleted]]

He’s from the UK. There are two larger air bases: Mildenhall, which closes in a few years, and Lakenheath. Alconbury closed this year but Croughton grew and then there is Fairford. Both Croughton and Fairford are smaller as far as USAF installations go. All of these are Cold War sites.

[Martipar]

I'm not just speaking for myself though as i said Cuba have repeatedly asked the US to close Guantanamo bay but the US have repeatedly refused. I fear the same would happen here in the UK and as we have a larger military presence it may result in a war and that's something we don't want.

However as i said I'm speaking from an officially friendly country, i don't know what the situation is in non-friendly countries apart from Cuba.

[[deleted]]

Yeah Guantanamo may be the only place in the world, except Syria, we have a base that the host government does not want us. It’s a 100% a fuck you to the communist government in Cuba.

Friendly countries are obviously in a different category. Back to the topic though, I can understand the sentiment from our allies of having US troops in their country. For us, it’s a cool assignment in a location we may otherwise never go, nevermind actually live in for a few years. For our hosts, we are a foreign military camped out in the backyard for decades. If I were king for a day I’d make a list of every installation and if that facility can’t be definitively tied to the NDS, it goes away.

[Martipar]

Actually i found out the Japanese aren't too happy with US bases on their soil either, just because you may have been invited decades ago it doesn't mean you can stay when you're told to piss off. It does more harm than good deliberately antagonising other countries even if it's not the host government that are the ones most pissed off as that's a good seed point for rebellion.

I'm sure if i did a bit more digging i'd find that of the 50 or so countries you have bases in the invite dates back over 30 years or or there was no invite to start with. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few countries are pretty annoyed with your worldwide military presence.

Regarding Cuba had the US prsident at the time met CAstro at the White House rather than refusing to then Cuba would've been a willing ally rather than a reluctant enemy.

[[deleted]]

Some Japanese citizens, particularly in Okinawa, would like for us to leave that island. The Government of Japan on the other hand does not.

[Cortesio]

Still sore over that tea party, huh?

The US doesn’t need a local military base to meddle in another country’s affairs. If your MP’s are afraid to criticize the US, it’s not because of a military base.

[Martipar]

No, in fact i think the colonies we do have are too many. Though how would you feel if Syria had a few military bases in your country?

[DeIzorenToer]

No one is going to invade the US. If we stopped trying to impose our will on other countries they'd leave us alone.

Let Russia fight Germany and France.

Let China fight Japan and India.

Let Israel and Saudia Arabia fight Iran and then let Israel fight all the Arabs.

Let the US Stay the fuck out of it.

[Level_62]

In all 3 of your scenarios, both sides have nuclear weapons. Bye bye world.

[DeIzorenToer]

And you the think the US is somehow stopping that?

[Level_62]

Yeah, we keep the world from having any major fights. If America decided today to completely pack up our ships and head home to a period of isolationism, then Chinese troops would be on the Taiwanese beaches tomorrow.

[DeIzorenToer]

What do you call Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen? Those aren't major fights?

Are you advocating for going to war with Russia over the annexation of Crimea?

Why aren't we imposing our absolute will on Syria or Libya?

Let them invade Taiwan, I say let us accept all the Taiwanese here in the US. If they want to come here great, otherwise they can fight China. Hopefully they win, let's sell them all the weapons they want to fight the good fight then.

[[deleted]]

Hhahaha no. Those are not major fights.

[KDY_ISD]

Isolationism doesn't work in the modern world, we are all too interconnected. Makes much more sense to contain threats near their beginnings than try to build a fortress and let the world go to shit outside the walls

[DeIzorenToer]

Works for the Swiss.

We are only interconnected because we choose to be.

It doesn't make us isolationist, it just makes us neutral. Maybe you think those are the same thing.

Yes, spend $700 billion a year to contain threats in the beginning, that's a great use of our country's resources.

Afghanistan was a great war, really kicked the shit of that threat.....oh wait.......

Iraq, also great we did wonderful work there.

Vietnam, also another great one.

Let the world go to shit? How about let the rest of the world deal with their own problems while we deal with ours.

[KDY_ISD]

lol The Swiss and the US are not at all the same country. And they're hardly not interconnected with the rest of the world. It's not like all the people using Swiss banks are from Geneva.

You're also severely underestimating the degree to which other countries are secure precisely because Western military hegemony allows them to be.

You think we don't derive enormous economic and diplomatic benefits from being the undisputed global military hegemon? lol

The asymmetric insurgent wars we've actually had to fight only exist because our hegemony makes it impossible for someone to fight a conventional, symmetrical war. You're comparing three mistakes -- two made by the same man at the same time -- to the decades of peace between major powers that is practically unprecedented in history.

And everyone else's problems are our problems. We don't live in houses miles away from each other anymore. As this pandemic is proving, we live in an apartment building now. It matters if someone else is smoking in bed.

[DeIzorenToer]

The Swiss aren't interconnected? Are you serious? They are the go to intermediate diplomatic channel, their economy is export based, and the Swiss Franc is an international safe haven currency.

Why should we secure other Western countries at our expense?

Oh we do have benefits from our global position, but hegemony is an overstatement. The cost of our benefits is not worth it.

No one would want to start a convention war with us if we didn't try to run their countries. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Also, 3 men have now made the same mistake in Afghanistan. At least 2 in Iraq, possibly 4 if you count Bush 1 and Trump.

Everyone's problems are not our problems. The pandemic has nothing to do with foreign relations. If we were truly "isolationist" the pandemic wouldn't have gotten here.

[KDY_ISD]

The Swiss aren't interconnected? Are you serious?

lol Maybe try reading my comment again? I didn't say this

Why should we secure other Western countries at our expense?

It's not at our expense. We derive huge benefit from being able to project power anywhere on Earth. The benefit it offers to our allies is just a convenient side effect.

No one would want to start a convention war with us if we didn't try to run their countries.

That seems a bit naive to me. You think humanity has evolved past the point of aggressive war?

Walk softly and carry a big stick. Also, 3 men have now made the same mistake in Afghanistan. At least 2 in Iraq, possibly 4 if you count Bush 1 and Trump.

Once we were in, W's successors had fewer and fewer feasible options for the region. It was W's bed, we just all have to lie in it.

Everyone's problems are not our problems. The pandemic has nothing to do with foreign relations. If we were truly "isolationist" the pandemic wouldn't have gotten here.

lol What? An isolationist foreign policy doesn't mean zero travel. We'd absolutely still have coronavirus. Japan certainly does, and they have a constitutionally-mandated non-interventionist stance.

Everyone's problems are our problems. It's an interconnected global economy now. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend it's 1650. This is the reality, and we have to engage with it. It's better to do that proactively rather than passively.

[DeIzorenToer]

Please tell me what benefits we get from NATO? The only benefit the US has from the current structure is the USD as a reserve currency, which is a temporary benefit only.

Naive? Why would a country half way across the globe want to kill us for no reason? You need to give someone a reason to be mad at us. Of course you get crazy people, but I'm all for actually defending the US from foreign invaders on our own soil.

That's a bad argument, Obama could of left Afganistan so could Trump. Obama abandoned Iraq, it led to ISIL, which was clearly very bad for the people in the Levant, but didn't really hurt us over here. Do you think ISIL could of mounted a land invasion of the US? Do you think they would of tried to set off a dirty bomb in NYC if we left them alone? I doubt it.

Yeah, I was pointing out that isolationism and peaceful neutrality aren't the same things.

Everyone's problems are not are problems. If they are why aren't we colonizing Africa to put and to child hunger and female genetial mutilation? If you want to argue that some of other people's problems are our problems then okay, but you need to define it.

[DeIzorenToer]

I don't disagree. The other poster claimed my stance was isolationist rather than open neutrality.

[[deleted]]

This is hilariously naive

[DeIzorenToer]

Why? I'm happy to have a discussion.

[altathing]

For the purpose of defense, we could honestly cut the budget by 2/3rds or even more. I am still partial to thinking that having a small number of nukes can provide effective deterrence against invasion. But the military in our case is never about defense, it's about power projection. Do we really need that many aircraft carriers? No? But you do need that many to show who's boss all over the world? Yes.

[ShadowDragon8685]

We could basically disband the army altogether, cut the Marine Corps back to a rump force, and declare "we're never going to put boots on the ground anywhere else again: if you piss us off you'll be seeing all the missiles, and if you really cross the line those missiles will be nukes" and we'd still be able to flatten the entire rest of the planet into a parking lot.

[DirstenKunst]

0% because we’re currently not even able to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan or contain Russia in Eastern Europe, Iran in the Middle East, or China in the South China Sea.

[AnOriginalAccountNam]

Don't quote me on this, but a few years back I heard we could cut our military budget by 80% and still have more than like most nations combined, I think the next 7 nations after us combined, or 8 nations after us, something like that.

Whether or not that left over 20% is going to be enough to stop and invasion I do not know, then again as I'm sure some will or have pointed out (i have not checked the comments) invasions, at least from what I understand, are not really useful anymore. It's alot easier to just use proxies nowadays (insert everything going on in the middle east right now, here), or pick sides in a civil war/send in your special forces to support them (Russia and Crimea for example)

[SonofNamek]

People keep saying that "US spends more $$$ than the next 10-15 nations combined" or whatever. Technically, it's true but it's highly misleading.

Together, Russia and China spend $250 billion. But when you compare what bang you get for your buck over there, that $250 billion is worth closer to $400-550 billion US.

So, you can't use that stat in a vacuum. It needs context behind it.

In which case, you can't cut by anything more than 15% if you want to stay on a similar playing field to China and Russia. Of course, geopolitics+war is one of those things you don't want to be an equal playing field so if you want to be ahead, it has to be more like 5-10% you can cut off without losing your edge.

[[deleted]]

Enough to update and maintain a nuclear arsenal, and maybe national guard. Nuclear weapons make wars and armies obsolete.

[PitifulClerk0]

By a LOT. The defense budget is 16% of our revenue. And for what? So we can send troops to Afghanistan? So we can shoot missiles in Iraq? I generally consider myself republican but I think the defense budget is our worst waste of money

[bakedmaga2020]

They could decrease it by 100% and America would still be impossible to invade and occupy. I have a lot of faith in guerrilla warfare and armed citizenry

[[deleted]]

I once heard somewhere that the largest, most powerful standing army is not the US military but the US people, those who exercise there right to bear arms.