 |
|
So you are for reducing the size of our conventional army &
Posted on: June 17, 2024 at 16:19:05 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
65579
Member For:
20.58 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
go all in on planning for & winning nuclear wars?
"It is ESSENTIAL that we let putin know we will use our nukes. We need to reduce our army size - not needed for potential major conflict - and ensure a very strong navy and air force."
Although I now think that the Iraq war was a mistake, I think it showed that a strong navy & air force cannot win a war by themselves, regardless of how strong they are... unless one is willing to nuke an adversary country into oblivion, of course.
Given that US adversaries tend towards something of an alliance against the US & our allies, it seems the US could potentially end up in a war on multiple fronts on multiple continents. From what I have read and heard, multiple military analysts think that the US military is understaffed and the big LGBTQ+ push probably isn't helping military preparedness for a large scale war on one front, much less vs multiple adversaries in various countries around the world simultaneously.
From a moral standpoint alone, the US should probably back way off on our belligerent positions around the world. But given the massive debt of the US, our receding industrial production capacity and populace unwilling and unable to carry on large, protracted military conflicts makes that less militaristic stance on the world stage all the more imperative, no?
Was this part of your response a typo?:
"We spend trillions on national "defense". WHAT in the hell has that done for us. We could, and should, spend much less on national OFFENSE"
"It is ESSENTIAL that we let putin know we will use our nukes. We need to reduce our army size - not needed for potential major conflict - and ensure a very strong navy and air force."
Although I now think that the Iraq war was a mistake, I think it showed that a strong navy & air force cannot win a war by themselves, regardless of how strong they are... unless one is willing to nuke an adversary country into oblivion, of course.
Given that US adversaries tend towards something of an alliance against the US & our allies, it seems the US could potentially end up in a war on multiple fronts on multiple continents. From what I have read and heard, multiple military analysts think that the US military is understaffed and the big LGBTQ+ push probably isn't helping military preparedness for a large scale war on one front, much less vs multiple adversaries in various countries around the world simultaneously.
From a moral standpoint alone, the US should probably back way off on our belligerent positions around the world. But given the massive debt of the US, our receding industrial production capacity and populace unwilling and unable to carry on large, protracted military conflicts makes that less militaristic stance on the world stage all the more imperative, no?
Was this part of your response a typo?:
"We spend trillions on national "defense". WHAT in the hell has that done for us. We could, and should, spend much less on national OFFENSE"
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
So you are for reducing the size of our conventional army & - JeffB MU - 6/17 16:19:05