Okayokay SOME military, but a reasonable amount. None of this 600 Billion dollar a year multinational invasion force like we have now.
you understand, of course, that a reasonably-sized military for America would involve resuming the draft, given that we currently have about half as many people under arms as we actually need to insure our varied strategic interests.
I disagree.
American military needs could be met by expanding the Navy and elements of the army (Special forces, training, flexible infantry) and shitcanning a ton of crap that is never gonna be used (heavy amour, various fixed defence systems etc) simply because Canada and Mexico are never gonna invade, and no-one else can get close enough without nukes or terrorism, which are two entirely different ballparks.
I mean, you could always go live in a third-world hellhole or some european nanny-state, but assuming that you have grown accustomed to the lifestyle that you enjoy as a direct result of American global primacy (and I think alot of people have never really thought about what their life would be like if American global primacy ceased to be), you should probably find a different way to cut government spending. There are alot of ways that money could be recouped without throwing open the gates and allowing the barbarians free reign.
Uh-huh.
Any evidence for this? I mean, aside from a tiresome slam on Europe (par for the course in these discussions) or are you just blowing assertions out of your arse here?
first off, I've never given two shits if someone from another country slams america or chimes in on its internal politics.
secondly, had western european nations been forced to foot the entire bill to defend themselves from the USSR for 50 years, I'm guessing they'd have had alot fewer social welfare programs. I don't have any hard evidence to back that up, but it seems like a reasonable educated guess, and it makes my cheap slam on europe relevant in the context of what I was commenting on in Felix's post.
third, aren't you Aussie? why take offense at a cheap-shot at european socialism even if you're inclined to take offense at such things in the first place?
Actually, the USA didn't want them to foot the bill, because it was afraid that Europe may act as an independent international actor and not in the US's best interests if it ran its own military on its own dime. Even now, this logic is applied to European defence issues. Its not like the EU is unable to pay, its just that the USA and UK apply pressure to try and make sure the EU remains nothing more than a trade bloc.
In fact, both Germany and France have been substanially building up their forces during the Cold War into the present, and the UK has always been a large military spender. Germany signs on to every international peacekeeping mission it can find, to work around its constitution, give their forces field experience and habituate the German people to having troops doing foreign missions. France has always wanted a military force aside from NATO in order to defend itself, which is why it withdrew from the NATO command structure.
As for your slam on European social systems, perhaps the fact that I'd likely be dead now without our wonderful free hospitals, or in prison because I had no money and no job for all of this summer, endear me to its benefits.
