Disbandment of Armed Forces and Defense Spending?

[Woolygimp]

This has absolutely nothing to do with our current war, but more of a serious look at the pros, cons, plausibility of such an action.

The scenario is basically if the United States were to
disband most branches of it's Armed Forces: the Army, Navy, Marines. Also cut all funding to future defense projects such as new weapons, tanks, missiles, bombs, helicopters.

What is the primary purpose of our military?
To operate in defense of our country in a time of war.

Honestly though, do we have to worry about the threat of invasion? It's different today than 50 years ago, with nuclear arsenals in the hands of dozens of countries, and our main threat coming from small unilateral terrorist groups which usually fall into the realm of law enforcement.

If we ever went to war with a nuclear superpower the size of our armed forces would be the last thing we'd need to worry about. We have 13,000 nuclear warheads, and most countries have plenty of their own.
Two major countries go to war? GG for everyone.

Anyway here's an idea of just how much things cost.
Nimitz class aircraft carrier - $4,500,000,000.00.
Seawolf class nuclear submarine - cost $1,250,000,000.00.
Abrams tank - $2,000,000.
Laser-guided ordnance - $25,000.
R&D for canceled Commanche - $15,000,000,000.

Then you have to take into account recruitment costs, salaries, R&D for our weapons (several billion dollars for each project, cost to build and operate, cost for maintenance of bases and facilities.

Our defense spending isn't in the billions, but is in the trillions.

We could use that money to for other projects, like cutting dependence on oil. I don't necessarily agree with this, but it's a giant 'what if' to an idea that popped into my head.

I'm also thinking that the military does have some benefits. Curbing unemployment rates? Selling defense technologies to other countries? Boosting the economy by putting more money into the hands of defense contractors?

I know very little about this, that's why I'm asking here.

[Angeleyes]

Hmmm, if you disband the military, how would you deploy the nukes? You're an idiot...

[Angeleyes]

I retract the idiot comment, it is not allowed in this forum. But the leaders of the free world must have a strong military to keep it that way whether you're a fan of the current admin or not.

[Woolygimp]

Quickly, everyone take notes. This guy shows truly how to make a great, and worthwhile response. Through use of advanced literary reverse engineers, I've been able to obtain that he uses the following process.

A) Insulting the OP for no reason whatsoever.
B) Make an ignorant assumption.
C) Being a total tool.

He also gets bonus points for not reading the original post, otherwise he'd have been able to understand that cutting spending on tanks != maintaining ballistic missiles.

Obviously the coast guard, and other vital defense expenditures would remain.

What I was referring to was the necessity of a $100,000,000,000.00 aircraft carrier fleet.

You think China's navy is top notch? I bet they could wipe us from the face of the earth.

[[censored]]

Isn't this a call for isolationism? Having a global economy, means having interests through out the world which requires a military to protect those interests. An extreme example being WWII where certainly we had an interest in seeing a free and friendly europe, if something similar were to occur today your plan would leave no options outside of nuclear war.

[Woolygimp]

Not necessarily saying I agree with it, but do you honestly think now that we are in the nuclear age that two nuclear armed powers can go at it w/o it developing into a nuclear war?

I don't think so.

We'd at least be richer before we got consumed by a multi-kiloton fireball.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a call for isolationism

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Believe it or not there are ways of interacting with the rest of the world without using bombs. Also war is highly implausible for the key allies of the US since they also have nuclear weapons.

I don't think totally disbanding their armed forces would be necessary but I don't see why the US needs 6 times the military budget of anyone else. $700 billion ffs when you don't even have universal health care...

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't see why the US needs 6 times the military budget of anyone else. $700 billion ffs when you don't even have universal health care...

[/ QUOTE ]

this wasn't in the OP which is what I addressed.

every country that has significant global interests and dealing has some sort of military I think that's strong evidence that its a vital component.

also I do in fact think two nuclear powers could have a military conflict and avoid using nukes.

[Woolygimp]

You think after a devastating defeat, with 5 million Chinese troops on our territory with cities in the western U.S. falling like dominoes that we wouldn't use nuclear weapons?

Flip the tables, you think they would hesitate?

If two countries were fighting each other in foreign territory, like if we had fought Russian troops in Vietnam it would still be likely to turn into a nuclear war...but not an absolute certainty like the scenario i just mentioned.

We either destroy war, or war will destroy us.

I don't think people give enough thought to the possibility.

Eventually two countries ARE going to go to war, and then it's over. India and Pakistan. China over Taiwan. North Korea. I'm just saying it's only a matter of time.

[PLOlover]

I think that was the unspoken premise of the tv movie "Amerika".