Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday March 24 2017, @11:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the which-swamps-are-we-draining? dept.

President Trump has proposed a $54 billion increase in defense spending, which he said would be "one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history."

Past administrations have increased military spending, but typically to fulfil a specific mission. Jimmy Carter expanded operations in the Persian Gulf. Ronald Reagan pursued an arms race with the Soviet Union, and George W. Bush waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump has not articulated a new mission that would require a military spending increase. This has left analysts wondering what goals he has in mind. Erin M. Simpson, a national security consultant, called Mr. Trump's plans "a budget in search of a strategy."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/22/us/is-americas-military-big-enough.html

Donald J. Trump - Military Readiness Remarks

[Related]: 2017 Outlook for Navy Shipbuilding

What do you think about the proposed increase in military spending ? Does USA really need more weapons ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday March 25 2017, @03:19AM (2 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Saturday March 25 2017, @03:19AM (#484016) Journal

    Large enough to maintain our control over the Americas two times over, with an air force that could defend Japan/Vietnam/South Korea from Chinese expansion. No need for any military installations anywhere else in the world as far as I am concerned. Even with prior stipulations made there should be no bases outside of the United States with the exception of Okinawa. Non pan-America countries should not have any longterm military in the region (lookin at you England).

    This should allow us to reduce our military by 50 to 60%.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Saturday March 25 2017, @05:32AM (1 child)

    by its_gonna_be_yuge! (6454) on Saturday March 25 2017, @05:32AM (#484035)

    Funny you mention Okinawa. Not too many people there want the Americans around. Too many rapes and murders. Too much debris and noise.

    • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:33PM

      by Sulla (5173) on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:33PM (#484111) Journal

      It is a pretty serious problem. I don't see an issue with withdrawing our forces and allowing the Japanese to take them over and build their own military presence in the area. Japanese culture has changed so much since the war that they are not the same kind of threat they were when it was decided they were not to be allowed to build another military.

      Okinawa is interesting because I don't think they would want a Japanese military presence either, seeing as they are culturally their own thing and were aquired by Japan just before the war started. But you are correct in that there is no reason for a soverign nation to ever put up with foreign troops encamped on their soil.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam