Thread: U.S. Senate voted 53 to 46 to Defend the Second Amendment

The size of our military does not thwart incentive to invade us, nukes do. We could easily drop it down to a 10th its current size. The military is beginning the government and contractors to stop making tanks but they want to keep making them because they provide jobs and make wealthy people wealthier. Likewise our military's involvement in foreign affairs is also completely unnecessary and causes blow-back. I'm not going to get into conspiracy, too much, but opinion on why our military is so large has nothing to do with homeland security.

Countries are not just afraid of our nukes. Nukes are a good deterrent, but even without them, nobody would consider invading us. They know what would happen here, but they also have the fear that our military would go over there and destroy all of their bases and overthrow the government. They know that nukes are something we would use as a very last resort, so our other toys and our soldiers are something our enemies are even more scared of.

You are just being dishonest now. How come you keep ignoring what I said? You keep pretending like military logistics is something I made up and isn't a real factor in war. If you had any common sense or knew anything about military stuff you would know that for any sort of prolonged war effort, supplying your troops is critical. The further you have to go to supply your troops the harder it is.

The distance from china to the US is nearly 7000 miles, you can't support a front line fighting 7000 miles away without a lot of supply points in between. Why do you keep ignoring that? I already pointed out how all the examples you gave had local support for the armies so they could get supplies. You need those supplies or a real invasion just isn't possible. Also the bigger army the bigger the supply base. All the examples you gave were fairly small armies and even then they still needed local supplies to help out. With an army the size needed to invade the US the supplies required would jump extremely high and it would just be a total nightmare.

There is no risk of China or Russia invading the US. Even at 1/10th our current military size Russia and China couldn't invade the US even if they teamed up.

I am not going play your little games since you are not even trying to be honest.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Countries are not just afraid of our nukes. Nukes are a good deterrent, but even without them, nobody would consider invading us. They know what would happen here, but they also have the fear that our military would go over there and destroy all of their bases and overthrow the government. They know that nukes are something we would use as a very last resort, so our other toys and our soldiers are something our enemies are even more scared of.

You're justifying the size of our military in reality based on a hypothetical situation you just made up. We have nukes to deter invasion, the military is the size it is not to deter invasion but to protect overseas assets and maintain capitalist dominance of the world. It has nothing to do with protection of the nation, not even pro-military public officials kid themselves with something so irrational. They promote the military to fight terrorists, which stand apart from mutually assured destruction because they have no home to mutually destroy. And their argument is faulty, too, our military technology more than does the job of suppressing terrorism, the size is irrelevant.

What did I make up? Did you see the historical list of invasions that I posted? Did you see the video I posted of the changing map of Europe? Every power hungry sociopath in the world would love to take over the world. Think of all of the people who have tried it.

Saying that there has been war in the past so there is going to be major wars in the future is such an over simplification that the statement is pretty much meaningless. You are not taking into account any of the relevant features, such as size of invasion, distances, the political climate, terrain, time period, types of weapons or historical contexts.

There is really no reason to fear anyone trying to take over the entire world. Especially here in the US where we are far from all the major conflict areas of the world.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What did I make up? Did you see the historical list of invasions that I posted? Did you see the video I posted of the changing map of Europe? Every power hungry sociopath in the world would love to take over the world. Think of all of the people who have tried it.

You invented a hypothetical situation where we don't have nukes in order to justify the size of our military which exists in a reality where we do have nukes.

Originally Posted by Alric

Saying that there has been war in the past so there is going to be major wars in the future is such an over simplification that the statement is pretty much meaningless. You are not taking into account any of the relevant features, such as size of invasion, distances, the political climate, terrain, time period, types of weapons or historical contexts.

There is really no reason to fear anyone trying to take over the entire world. Especially here in the US where we are far from all the major conflict areas of the world.

That's because of our military. Do you think power hungry sociopathic dictators are just too lazy to try to take over the United States? I didn't say we will be taken over. I said it's a possibility that we have to have a powerful military to prevent, and that is what we have. History proves how real the threat is. You're cracking me up.

Why did you pass up my ten invasions challenge? Come on. Show us what you know about world history.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You invented a hypothetical situation where we don't have nukes in order to justify the size of our military which exists in a reality where we do have nukes.

No, I said that countries know we would use our nukes as a last resort so we need to have a deterrent that they know we will use immediately if they ever invade us. I also mentioned a hypothetical situation of our not having nukes to illustrate how effective of a deterrent our military is.

Another strong deterrent is our armed citizenry. We have a secondary military of civilians with guns. There are more than 100 million of us. We have 89 guns for every 100 people. Nobody wants to come here and start shit.

I find it hilarious that you said there is 100 million of us with guns and that is a secondary military all by itself and that no one would want to come here and start shit. You basically admitted that I was right and that we don't need a military because we already have an armed population that is enough of a threat to stop everyone even without our military being here. So why pay for a military?

Originally Posted by Alric

I find it hilarious that you said there is 100 million of us with guns and that is a secondary military all by itself and that no one would want to come here and start shit. You basically admitted that I was right and that we don't need a military because we already have an armed population that is enough of a threat to stop everyone even without our military being here. So why pay for a military?

I said we have a military plus an armed citizenry. People in the military are professional war fighters. They are better at it than the rest of us. They give us security. The armed civilians are a great bonus. We are an extra reason nobody wants to invade the United States. Also, there is the possibility that our military would need to go to another country and fight to take down the government of an invading country. Also, a Hitler might take over South America, Central America, and Mexico, in which case we would need the military to go to those places to fight. The armed civilians wouldn't be pros at that. We also don't have the large multitude of awesome toys the military has.