Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank panel recommends almost $1T in defense cuts (140 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A Political Stunt & a Bad Idea (0+ / 0-)

    In the 1920's, the United States cut military spending to the bone.  We felt we had sufficient defenses to protect ourselves and no enemies that could reach us.  By cutting defense spending now, you guarantee that more Americans will die in the next war.  And while no one wants another war our history demonstrates that if not this year, then ten years from now, or twenty we will have to commit our military to war.  

    During WWII, when the Russians lost 20 million dead, we had less than 200,000 dead.  A horrible number, but less than what the Russians lost in a bad month.  Our losses were so limited because we as a nation made the decision to throw away cash on superior weapons than economically cheaper GI lives.
    Today, we throw billions of "wasted" dollars at the military so when they enter battle we can destroy our enemies before they can even get a shot off at our soldiers.

    Consider the Iraq war, whether you agree or disagree in the justness what can't be argued is how well the military performed.  A country the size of California and with an army of 500,000 was conquered with the loss of only a few hundred men.  Terrible, but a pittance of historical casualty rates.

    Our losses were so limited because we have made the decision to spend money rather than lives.  We throw billions of dollars at the military so when they are needed we can waste overpriced missiles instead of precious lives.

    So when you cheer the cuts in the military, remember that those cuts will almost certainly mean that there will be more flag draped coffins being lowered into the ground in 2020.

    •  Bullshit. OFfensive bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

      Today, we throw so much money at the military that it starts looking for wars to fight.

      Therefore, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

      We had fewer dead in WWII than Europeans because (1) The war wasn't fought in the US (except tiny Hawaii), (2) We didn't enter the war until very late.

      The military performed abominably in Iraq -- the troops did great, but the higher-ups had no idea what they were trying to do.  "Conquered"?  Ha.  We never got operational control.

      The US military hasn't been actually needed since WWII.

      So when you cheer wasteful military spending, remember that that spending is the REASON flag draped coffins are being lowered into the ground THIS YEAR.  Not some theoretical future war when the US is invaded by Mexico.  REAL war, REAL death, NOW, CAUSED by military spending.

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:06:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And for further evidence (0+ / 0-)

        The fact is that the US decided to throw unprotected cannon fodder at the Normandy landing, while the British used complex technology to try to protect the troops during the landing.  So the US really did not deploy its technology to "reduce casualty rates" during WWII.

        You just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

        -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

        by neroden on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:09:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: And further evidence (0+ / 0-)

          So, you're supporting the British approach of using expensive high tech solutions to reduce casualty rates?

          Wouldn't that be a point in support of my position that the proposed military cuts are shortsighted?

      •  Re: Bullshit. Offensive Bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

        I've got no problem with you taking issue, but "offensive".  For voicing an opposing opinion?  I believe that's what is called "intolerance".

        Not sure how my bullshit is offensive - unless you can't stand to face down a decent argument with facts and ideas.

        You are absolutely correct that a large portion of the higher casualties suffered by the USSR was because the war was fought on Euro soil.  But, the US DID suffer relatively low casualty rates because of our use of high-tech and "overkill" tactics.  

        As for the last time we needed military intervention was WWII - I'm not sure the people who aren't starving under a Stalinist dictatorship in South Korea would agree.  As for the millions who died in Cambodia you can only find out their opinions with a Ouija board.

        As for military spending being the cause of war I just don't see it.  That's like saying crime is caused by funding the police.  If anything, we've gotten into more trouble when military spendng was low -- in 1936 the US army was smaller than Czech military - if it had been a properly sized and outfitted force maybe we wouldn't have had to enter WWII five years later.  In the 1970's President Carter cut spending and programs and it emboldened the USSR into invading Afghanistan and crushing Poland.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site