How can the American military be reduced in overseas bases and

the US has historically tried the isolationist approach before, and usually it works for a little bit. Until it doesn't, and then the US is scrambling to ramp up production to enter a massive war at the last minute.

Reducing anywhere would weaken our foreign policy and give our enemies an inch.

Also, non-interventionism is a folly in the 21st Century. The world is much smaller now, we can't not be affected by what goes on around the world.

Regional conflicts are not just our business, they're everyone's business.

File: autism.jpg (51KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 514x536px

>>32974751
>the only possible alternative to having bases straddling the world and invading and bombing countries and overthrowing governments and installing dictatorships is having a total isolationist policy
>and if we do that bad things happen OOOooooOOOOoooOOO

>>32974766
>our enemies
the cold war ended over 20 years ago grandpa
>Regional conflicts are not just our business, they're everyone's business.
nice slogan

Why isn't Indonesias occupation of Papua or the Burmese military dictatorship or Sri Lanka and the Congos civil wars anybodies interest or business?
Because they simply don't register. There is nothing of value there.

But curiously if there is energy or mineral resources somewhere, well then suddenly we must be concerned about human rights, and failed states, and international terrorism breeding ground

Old wine in a new bottle

OP displays a severe case of dunning kruger

>>32974730
>South Korean military is huge

North Korea's military is the 5th largest in the world and much bigger than South Korea.

Yes most of their toys are from the cold war and barely work but they still have hundreds of Artillery pieces and rockets pointed at South Korea at all times.
The U.S. military presence helps deter any NK offensive plus we're able to install much needed countermeasures. Our presence is vital there

>>32974877
>resources are important

No shit dude

File: 1483305073686.jpg (61KB, 526x593px)

61KB, 526x593px

Ian dump

>>32974751
>non-interventionism = isolation

No wanting to get involved in foreign conflicts or entanglements does not mean shutting oneself off from the world.

>>32974877
>>>32974766
>>our enemies
>the cold war ended over 20 years ago grandpa
>>Regional conflicts are not just our business, they're everyone's business.
>nice slogan
>Why isn't Indonesias occupation of Papua or the Burmese military dictatorship or Sri Lanka and the Congos civil wars anybodies interest or business?
>Because they simply don't register. There is nothing of value there.
>But curiously if there is energy or mineral resources somewhere, well then suddenly we must be concerned about human rights, and failed states, and international terrorism breeding ground
>Old wine in a new bottle


Quite on the contrary. Conflict is allowed to continue to exist in the Congo specifically because it allows international market interests to exploit it's natural resources at the greatest value. If Congo had a stable government with legitimacy then it would stop the massive multi-national exportation of its natural resources. Or at least force capital into even bearings. All of these conflicts exist because they support the international status quo.

>>32974910
>North Korea's military is the 5th largest in the world and much bigger than South Korea.
It is true that the North Korean has 1 million conscripts.
1 million famine stunted conscripts that are afflicted with rickets and goiters and are intellectually impaired.
1 million stunted intellectually impaired conscripts equipped with T-54 tanks and MIG-15 fighters that are 50 years old and dont have fuel or ammunition.

The South Korean military on the other hand is well fed and trained and disciplined and well equipped.
It has 19 Infantry Divisions. 9 Mechanized Divisions. 9 Reserve Divisions.
What can it not do that the American presence that consists of a SINGLE armor brigade and cavalry brigade and artillery brigade and anti-air brigade all positioned right on the border ensuring they'd be the first to be hit be able to do?
It would take months to mobilise forces from the USA to deploy there

Just supposing that there was a war and South Korea could not handle things and needed help - there are 15,000 Marines right next door more capable of helping.

But that is all hypothetical because with the American presence removed from the peninsula tensions would be reduced significantly

>Yes most of their toys are from the cold war and barely work but they still have hundreds of Artillery pieces and rockets pointed at South Korea at all times.

This is their Retaliatory Strike capability
To be used if attacked or if they think there is an attack - like every time the Americans conduct training maneuvers right on the border which sends them into a high state of alert, deploys forces, and creates a situation where an accident or misunderstanding could spark something dreadful

>deter any NK offensive
Already addressed that
But the idea of the Norks going on the offense is absurd. They do not have the logistics, the capability, the air superiority

>>32974923
>I have never heard of any of those places please provide sources
That proves my point

>>32975007
>they do not have the capability
Try telling them that.

File: aKgL8PQ_700b.jpg (68KB, 600x500px)

68KB, 600x500px

>>32974910
CAPITALIST PIG DOGS
LISTEN TO THIS MAN QUAKING IN FEAR
HE KNOWS THE TRUE POWER OF THE SUPREME MILITARY MIGHT OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF KOREA

>>32974958
for a major economical power, actually it does

File: APTOPIX North Korea Anniver.jpg (263KB, 982x642px)

263KB, 982x642px

>>32974910
>they still have hundreds of Artillery pieces and rockets pointed at South Korea at all times.
IMPERIALIST SCUM
LISTEN TO THIS RUNNING DOG FOR CAPITALISTS
HE KNOWS HOW TOTAL AND DEVASTATING OUR RESPONSE WILL BE TO ANY VIOLATION OF OUR TERRITORY

>>32975085
No, it doesn't
There is more than one way to conduct international relations than bombing it
Thats how the rest of the world operates as a matter of fact

>>32974730
>How many divisions should the Army and Marines be reduced to?
4 or 5 standardized army divisions
- 1 armor brigade, 1-2 stryker brigades, 1-2 motorised infantry brigades, aviation brigade
1 'rapid reaction' division
- 2 airborne and 2 air assault brigades

1 or 2 marine divisions

File: 0656972eec2d456db2c04e859bcb8a96.jpg (99KB, 1080x851px)

99KB, 1080x851px

>>32974730
>non-interventionist US
>"THE US ARE NAZIS THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT X COUNTRY! WHY AREN'T THEY FUNDING OUR MILITARY! WE NEED AMERICA TO PROTECT US FROM THE EVIL RUSSIANS!"

>interventionist US
>"THE US ARE NAZIS THEY ARE INTO X COUNTRY TOO MUCH! WHY IS THE US SPENDING SO MUCH ON MILITARY FUNDING! WE DON'T NEED AMERICA TO PROTECT US FROM THE EVIL RUSSIANS!"

>actually thinking that defense spending has increased since the fall of the USSR

Does your mom know you post here this late at night?

1/10 troll.

>>32975026
What

You said Western governments tend to get involved in regions that have significant natural resources, like oil

My point is no shit they do, resources are critically important

>>32975136
>>"THE US ARE NAZIS THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT X COUNTRY! WHY AREN'T THEY FUNDING OUR MILITARY! WE NEED AMERICA TO PROTECT US FROM THE EVIL RUSSIANS!"

The USA does that already, a list of 4 conflicts nobody gives a shit about despite their noble interventions claims.

Further do you think anyone would have cared about Iraq if the worlds oil reserves were in the South Pacific and the countries chief export was cucumbers?

Same for Afghanistan and the sanctimonious claims of concern for its women - the Soviets said the same thing and were laughed at. And how about the women in our ALLIES Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Qatar and the UAE?
Its a completely farcical put on.

>Russians

Russia is responding to American and NATO expansionism into their sphere of influence.
Attempting to encircle it with bases, attempting to seize control of its energy reserves and pipelines, placing Missile Defence Shield installations nearby which are a serious threat.
And this is all in violation of promises Bush Snr and James Baker made at the end of the Cold War.
This is a threat to their security having a hostile military force on their border - how would the USA respond if Mexico or Canada joined the Warsaw Pact?
It is a shit regime but it is responding in a quite predictable way to being antagonized and threatened.

>>32975220
it has
1 trillion/yr
700+ bases around the world
drone strikes and JSOC raids in god knows how many places

>>32975085
Explain China then.

>>32974730
The quote in your picture from Eisenhower was at a time when the US was dedicating 8% of its GDP to military spending. Military spending increased to 16% of GDP under Eisenhower.

At the end of the Cold War military spending had slid back down to about 8% of GDP, even during the Regan buildup.

Post cold war military spending slid down to about 4% of GDP until 9/11 happened.

At the height of the War on Terror military spending was about 5.5% of GDP.

Present military spending is around 4.5% of GDP right now.

Your quote lacks historical context and was deliberately selected to elicit a response in favor of your biased viewpoint. These are either the tactics of a propagandist and a troll or the tactics of a weak mind seeking confirmation for their own naked biases.

>paraphrased OP: How can America save money by naval gazing and in the process giving up strategic assets and positions.

These are wrong questions to ask how to reduce military spending.
Ergo, no good will come of the discussion in this thread.

Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

/thread

>>32975365
Except thats fucking wrong
They do not properly account for the full spending on military when they make those modern %
The official figure is less than half what is really spent

>>32975365
>we need high spending because cold war
>there is no cold war and spending is a trillion a year
>Your quote lacks historical context and was deliberately selected to elicit a response in favor of your biased viewpoint.

And if spending is so low, whats the deal with all these bases and deployments and bombers and carriers and subs?

>>32975748
Even if what you said is true, and we're spending 9% of our budget on the military, that means even with Darpa and black budgets we're at pre-eisenhower spending levels. You post also assumes that in all other periods, black budget spending was accounted for in % of GDP.

There's no empirically falsifiable way for you to conclude that modern military spending as a % of GDP has not fallen significantly.

>>32975767
Our country is so rich that even with all that, we barely need to spend 1/20th of our budget playing team america world police.

File: PLA Strategist The U.S. Uses Its Dollar to Dominate the World – Chinascope_20170213090025.png (2MB, 1360x9891px)

2MB, 1360x9891px

The US must maintain military presence around the world in order to contain regional hegemons and enforce dollar's status as global reserve currency. The current status quo allows Americans to preserve financial dominance and enjoy extravagant spending at the expense of the rest of the world.

>>32975957
>9% is less than 8%
>You post also assumes that in all other periods, black budget spending was accounted for in % of GDP.
You admit they conceal the real amount spent on the military and its actually much higher
Thanks

The figure of 1.12 trillion/yr for the American military comes from a 2011 article on tomdispatch
It estimates aproximately 40 billion for the black budget, but of course this is only an estimate
>>32975983
Its also a big chunk of the debt
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175361/tomgram%3A_chris_hellman,_$1.2_trillion_for_national_security/
>>32976038
And this benefits the countless tens of millions of Americans living near or below poverty, without healthcare or education or jobs?

>>32974730

The only way to truly downsize the US military would be to downsize the number of international alliances that the US is sworn to uphold. Different presidents have embraced different philosophies for what size of force structure the US needed. The current president, Donald Trump, has made it very clear that he supports the "two war" paradigm which says that the US must have enough ships, planes, and soldiers armed and ready to fight two separate wars in different areas of the world simultaneously.

>>32976224
> the number of international alliances that the US is sworn to uphold.
>america has to defend other countries
lol

>>32976189
1.2t (your article)/16.7t (gdp) = 0.07185628742


This link should do the math for you. Even assuming the Tomdispatch article is correct, we're spending less than 8% on national security/nukes/military.

File: 1485450999827.gif (2MB, 400x274px)

2MB, 400x274px

>>32976333

The US has emphatically promised to so on many occasions so yeah pretty much.

>>32976224
>signing on to international alliances requires you to have forward deployed bases and troops

File: download.png (271KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 900x500px

>>32974730
Taking a defensive posture has always marked the fall of empires. I know only neo-cons/libs think like that, but it will effect your quality of life. No more slave labor from China, no more reserve currency status propping up our economy, no more slave labor from South of the border. I think we can do it and I think we need to do it. Expect a lot of complaints and living with Chinese Imperialism.

>>32976428

Well, actually yes.

>>32976356
>lets just assume my claims of Ikes budget are correct

>>32976379
defend from who?
there is no threat

>>32976430
>neocons
>reduce spending and foreign bases and size of military
wut
>>32976438
why aren't there german and italian and japanese troops base in america then?

>>32976443
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US

What data do you have to go against this historical trend?

>>32976480
Because in the case of Japan they constitutionally can't, and in the case of Germany and Italy, both those nations have extremely weak military forces relative to the size of their economies.

File: collective-defense-feb-2017-b.png (2MB, 2089x1320px)

2MB, 2089x1320px

>>32976465

This is a map of all the various defense agreements that the US has signed over the years. The US is expected to defend all of those countries from any potential attacker, quickly and decisively. This requires are very large military.

>>32975246
>Its a completely farcical put on.
Shh! It doesn't work if you talk about it.

>>32976480

>Implying that any of those countries have enough soldiers to operate foreign bases.

>>32976189
>And this benefits the countless tens of millions of Americans living near or below poverty, without healthcare or education or jobs?
Nobody is starving. Quite the opposite, actually.

>>32974730
You can either cut bases and make more carriers or you can cut carrier production and keep the bases you have.

Doing both is just plain dumb.

>>32976480
>wut
I meant they (neo-conservatives and neo-liberals) think of America as an empire (more like the military wing of the global-empire). I should have made that more clear, sorry.

>>32974877
>Why isn't Indonesias occupation of Papua or the Burmese military dictatorship or Sri Lanka and the Congos civil wars anybodies interest or business?
>Because they simply don't register. There is nothing of value there.
...The fuck are you talking about?

Indonesia's occupation of West Papua isn't talked about because Indonesia is an old Cold War ally of America, but West Papua is rich with resources.

Burmese military dictatorship was everyone's business, in the 90s it was up there with the Dalai Lama for progressive cool kids points, but all the Western attention was counter-productive and antagonistic towards the regime, so the West consciously distanced itself a bit. Burma also has huge mineral deposits, especially precious minerals, and is one of the largest suppliers of heroin in the world, so plenty of inter-governmental dialogue happens behind the scenes.

Sri Lanka was huge news internationally, especially the bloody finale, but the civil war's been over for several years now. There hasn't been as much government involvement, but non-government organisations have been huge there in their involvement.

I'm pretty sure DR Congo's had more UN peacekeepers than all of the other missions combined, it's also an extremely resource rich country, which is why Belgium had 'a hand' in colonising the place.

Seriously, apart from the West Papuan situation, the other three are some of the highest profile humanitarian disasters of the last forty years, you literally couldn't have picked worse examples except maybe the Ethiopian famine in the 80s.

>>32974730
>America just antagonizes the North
I could give less of a shit about what those stunted dwarfs think about us. Point being is that while the Sorks can hold their own and I believe in their capabilities, they'd still need help to some degree to push the Norks back to Pyongyang. Which arguably could be done without a garrison, we could sit a carrier in the region. But simply pulling out of Asia, or really any area in the world, opens it up to our competition. As much as I'm unhappy about the position we've come to hold in the world, much of our current standard of living seems to depend on it
>but healthcare/education/infrastructure
Are things we already pour an absolute assload of money into. What we need in these areas are reform, and a hell of a lot of it. Which of course gets everyone riled up about things like the role of the federal government but it will probably need to happen at some point.

Realistically closing a couple bases and shutting down a few carriers would probably work out for the best, but we must retain the capability to project our power anywhere in the world. Like it or not we are a superpower, and the moment we lose that position is the moment the rest of the world figures out they can fuck with us.

>>32976038


This is what I explain to lolbertarians. Gold standard means nothing when your money is backed up with a gun.

>>32975136
>That pic
What about the people with permanent resident status who suddenly couldn't come home?

>>32974730
>America just antagonizes the North

Everything antagonizes the north you dumb cuck

>>32979645
Bitch please. That shit got sorted in less than a week.

>>32974730
It has already started to leave the UK and planning to leave Germany IIRC

>>32981786
So what? People who had gone overseas for a few days for something like a funeral were suddenly trapped and unable to go home for no good fucking reason.

Required marksmanship programs at every school, every household required to maintain one firearm, every city and town required to operate a well equipped militia, every civilian shipyard must maintain equipment and training to serve naval needs, same with automotive factories and aerospace facilities.

New vehicles get prototyped out but never put into mass production except for export and factories stand ready to pump out hardware in time for draftees to be trained to use them.


Basically we keep a jig and mold in every plow factory so they can beat them into swords at a moments notice.

Standing military primarily exists to protect embassies and maintain bases and training programs so they can pump out troops.


When America entered WW2 troops were training with wooden weapons. We were that unprepared.

These days blitz tactics and terrorism are the way of the world so we stay alert and ready to go at a moments notice.


Keep plans in place to turn oil tankers into aircraft carriers and such.

>>32982153

File: rv35ORS.png (175KB, 1000x4227px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1000x4227px

>>32974730
We all know North Korea would love to wage a unification war, so no, pulling out of South Korea is not a good idea. Personally, I would much rather maintain our alliance/friendships with Japan and South Korea and cut Europe off. At least Japan and South Korea are decent trading partners that produce shit that's actually worth something.
Pic related.

>>32982158

Both Britain and France spend way more on their military than Japan does.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?name_desc=true

>>32982153
Obsolete and silly money waster. We don't need a bunch of unskilled meatbag cannon fodder or "instant targets" like converted tankers or container ships. That's Sparky-level autism and what's worse, diverts resources from productive programs with much more throw weight.

We are completely ready for existential warfare, and playing into obsolete strategies is not a wise use of conventional resources.

If you knew anything about ships you'd laugh at tanker or container ship carriers because the "hull" is not the warfighting SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS. Commercial ships are built cheap to haul cargo making as much money as possible before scrapping. They are not constructed to be robust under fire. They are missile bait.

>>32982053
Dont live in terrorist countries then fag

>>32982500
>I'm retarded

They don't, you goddamn idiot. They live in the US. Why do you want to restrict travel for people who are not threats?

>>32974730
>How can the American military be reduced in overseas bases and deployments, size and scope and funding to reduce foreign adventurism, inflaming regional conflicts that are no business of Americas, and redirecting the savings made to rebuilding Americas crumbling infrastructure and industry?

We dont. Fuck off luddite.

>>32974730
We probably need our Korean force there not just to back up Nice Korea, but to backup our forces in Japan.
Then again we may also have a huge force in Japan already, I really don't know.

>>32982158
Not to mention, japan and korea actually support us. They love us. They respect us. I agree. Cut spending from nato. Let the eu handle its own. If britain coughs up and says muslims are wrong we should help them tho.

>>32982230

In every war civilian equipment is repurposed for military use.

Even America has turned civilian liners into cruisers.

Oil tankers have double hulls and compartmentalized design.

>>32974910
>North Korea's military is the 5th largest in the world and much bigger than South Korea.
And they have fuel enough for being at war a whole week. Whole week! Can you imagine what DRPK can do in that 7 day all out offensive? Terrible, terrible things.

>>32983074

>Oil tankers have double hulls and compartmentalized design.

And guess what they don't have?

Nuclear reactors.

>>32974766

We can not become the worlds oppressors though.

We can't police the world without the worlds consent and the worlds tax dollars.

If America is sending trillions overseas and policing the world for free, we can not sustain that as a business model.

It would be sacrificing American lives and ruining American livelihoods for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

Where are all the nations we liberated when we need help? Illegal Mexican migrants are doing a "reconquest" and where the fuck is France or South Korea?!

After 9/11 how many nations sent a field army to assist?? NONE OF THEM. If I recall nobody even sent a division.

And the world treats American tourists like GARBAGE.

So fuck them!

>>32974730
Every conflict is our business, if there's some way to come up. Welcome to statecraft 101.

>>32983212

They don't need nuke reactors.

They can use fuel.

We are talking about needing to repurpose civilian vessels for a few years of use, MAX. Long enough for purpose built designs to be fielded. And only for SHTF scenarios.

There's no shame in it dude

>>32983212
US can produce enough oil for itself. US can not produce enough nuclear fuel for itself.

>>32983287
>US can not produce enough nuclear fuel for itself.

Our hat has plenty.

>>32983361
Your hat has no enrichment industry. US enrichment is close to dead.

>>32983287
Thanks to fracking, which people are trying to outright ban.

>>32983284

A conventionally powered ship will never be able to match the speed or endurance of a CVN. Especially since civilian hulls tend to be very slow compared to military hulls for obvious reasons. And this is dictated by the hull shape, so it literally can't be changed without remaking the hull which kinda defeats the whole point.

>>32975767

There was even more of that before 1991, learn 2 history. We went into Iraq in Operation Desert Storm with 700,000 troops. In OIF we just used 150,000 troops, mainly because the US armed forces didn't have the manpower to send 700,000 troops to Iraq.

>>32976189
You must be smoking some dank shit if you think the US today is spending anywhere near it was (as a percentage of GDP) during WW2 and the Cold War. The US Navy used to be over twice the size it is today.

>>32984199

It's better to have a civilian ship that's militarised than have no ship at all.

That's a point you need to consider.

>>32985240

>It's better to have a civilian ship that's militarised than have no ship at all.

Good thing we have a navy with plenty of ships so we're not forced to make ultra-slow half-assed carriers then.