Brad, I agree that we have BEEN the world's policeman. But if Iran could find a way to export oil, then surely I'll be able to import anything I need. The question is, at what price. If the price is too high to import, it might be produced domestically. I'd rather pay the premium to the domestic manufacturer than pay a tax to defend the foreign manufacturer. wrt oil, in the past I would have agreed with you, but with the advent of renewables and certainly fracking and the increase in American production (and Canadian), we need not be as engaged internationally on such a high military level.

So then you agree with trump on higher tariffs on imported goods

"Manwe, most of the spending goes to personnel. The mone for those military hardware items have already been spent."

It has to cost a pretty penny to keep all of these vehicles maintained/fueled/stored though. And we are constantly building new ones. And explain why we need over 2 million active duty paid personnel instead of 500,000?

Brad, hehe, I drive American (and meh, it's good enough but not great), or at least the nameplate seems to be. I get that the parts come from abroad and some of the assembly is probably done abroad but I'm guessing it comes from Canada, Mexico, or China. So even if our military was reduced, China would still have an interest in making sure their parts get here (and so would Canada and Mexico).

The US is nearly self sufficient in domestic oil production. But ever hear of rare earths? Who controls ninety percent of the worlds supply? Not anyone in this hemisphere. We did but environmental regulations killed the domestic supply. So you then agree with trump in reduction of regulation.

Brad, tariffs are a separate issue from military spending. Let's stick to the issue -- unless you concede my point on the disappearing need to be the world's policeman everywhere.

Here is a fun fact. Did you know that the soviet union was trading with nazi Germany up to he very day of its invasion?

No they are linked by economics. And as to the need. That is a political and economic question. Of course then you would agree with trump when he says we should cut back on our treaty commitments and bring our forces home. Your points put you in the trump camp on many items.

Brad, is your argument for our HUGE military budget now hinged solely on our ability to obtain rare earth elements? If we have them here, then I'm sure we can extract them in an environmentally remediable way that is way less expensive. If they exist only abroad, then I can tolerate military expenditures on a targeted basis. Renting Afghan loyalty (for example, the Lithium they got there) is much cheaper than maintaining a military infrastructure -- that's how the Chinese do it. It's a much smarter way to spend money.

Brad, yes I'm aware that Stalin cooperated with Hitler until Germany invaded. Where we going with this? wrt to cutting back on treaty commitments, I don't believe that cutting military is the same as cutting commitments. Much of our military spending is unrelated to maintaining treaty commitments. So we should remain committed to NATO and Japan and Korea, etc. Can we make good on our commitments with 1/2 of our military spending? I bet we could.

The Chinese are expanding their military. Look I am not defending the size. I am explaining the size. If we want to pull back there will be a vacuum. The Chinese are quite willing to fill it.

No haute we a cannot. As it is we are prepared for one war and a small commitment

Brad, China has trouble projecting military power even in their own backyard due to our military spending. I don't see them filling any vacuum we leave in other parts of the world. Vacuum? Well, I don't see how having 1/2 of our presence creates a vacuum (zero presence).

Brad, I get the "one are and a small commitment" capacity thing. Problem is, that assumes that waging a future war/commitment will require the same (conventional) weapons as the past. Seems that spending on more cyber and less conventional would be a wiser and more effective way to go.

you were not paying attention. half the size does not equal half the ability. and china is certainly moving to fill the vacuum. and we are not even talking about north korea bent on getting a nuke in california

I've got two problems with the whole vacuum thing. 1. As I've been saying, we can do everything we've been doing (even the stuff we shouldn't be doing) with far fewer resources, the amount we have now is excessive and 2. Where would this vacuum be? The South China Sea? That's a U.N. issue, but even if China were to take complete control of it, it really wouldn't change anything.

now i know you are talking out your ass. you have not studied anything about the use of military resources.

it really wouldn't change anything.

right manwe, right. dumb as a bag of hammers and as aware as a man with a bag over his head.

Tell me what would happen

Brad, don't cop out on me. There is only one explanation when we spend a MULTIPLE of what other countries do on the military. Either we are doing it inefficiently or we are overdoing it or both.

Brad, I won't think any less of you if you admit that we could cut back on military spending and use that money elsewhere. You have the capacity to change your mind, right?

Manwe, China sees our support of Taiwan as very offensive. It is like a "stone" in their way. A stone that is supposed to be part of China, not a beachhead for opposing interests. Here in America, we don't appreciate their frustration at America's heavy-handed way to keep them down.

@Hauta

as a proud irishman, sovereignty is the most important right for any country. Taiwan is a country, whether or not you have the guts to admit it. By trying to westernize and break from China - a practical slave state in many aspects - I fully support their right to independence. to throw Taiwan back into China's hands, would be to not only destroy the lives of thousands, but to prove ourselves once again to be hypocrites, not willing to stand up for the little guy.

I am fully aware of the whole Taiwan situation, but what does that have to do with anything we are talking about? Are you suggesting Taiwan would be invaded if the U.S. was not in the immediate area? Maybe, but why is the U.S. Taiwan's baby sitter? An invasion by China would be a matter for the U.N. to respond to, not the U.S. unilaterally.

I'm sorry if we're so "heavy handed" to a country spearheading climate crises, with multiple human rights violations, supporting a slaveholding dictator in North Korea, with many of its own citizens stripped of basic rights.

China is carrying out construction to fortify islands in the South China Sea in order to expand military bases there. China sees this expansion as its legal right and a vital way to protect one of the country's main shipping lanes. U.S. officials have described the island building project as an attempt by China to assert military dominance over the region.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/beijing-strikes-back-white-house-draws-red-lines-over-south-n711401

But, I do have a way for Taiwan to be protected without us being there. Just give Taiwan 1000 of our 4000 nukes, I guarantee China won't come near them.

The risk of conflict in the South China Sea is significant. China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines have competing territorial and jurisdictional claims, particularly over rights to exploit the region's possibly extensive reserves of oil and gas. Freedom of navigation in the region is also a contentious issue, especially between the United States and China over the right of U.S. military vessels to operate in China's two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These tensions are shaping—and being shaped by—rising apprehensions about the growth of China's military power and its regional intentions. China has embarked on a substantial modernization of its maritime paramilitary forces as well as naval capabilities to enforce its sovereignty and jurisdiction claims by force if necessary. At the same time, it is developing capabilities that would put U.S. forces in the region at risk in a conflict, thus potentially denying access to the U.S. Navy in the western Pacific.

http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/armed-clash-south-china-sea/p27883

I guarantee China won't come near them.

problem one, the taiwanese use them to regain control of mainland.
problem two, china responds to US provocation.
problem three, china launches a pre-emptive strike on taiwan