the modern day us army: manpower, budget and 'employment'

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1,171
The US had a tradition of no large standing army during peace time with some exceptions during parts of the Cold War. Today the US military equals less then one percent of it's population.
Kirk's Raiders
so what is all the money for Your military spend's? horses?
 
Last edited:

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
Although the US had had death squads from time to time I.e. the murder of three Civil Rights workers by members of the KKK and one Nebosha County Sheriff's Deputy plus the likely acquiesce of the Mississippi State Police generally speaking the US doesn't tolerate death squads on its soil.

The US had a tradition of no large standing army during peace time with some exceptions during parts of the Cold War. Today the US military equals less then one percent of it's population.
Kirk's Raiders
you don't say? it's not about manpower primarely, is it?

 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
you don't say? it's not about manpower primarely, is it?

Military spending is irelvent to manpower.

North Korea for example has a far highrrper capita percentage of their population in their full time military and reserves then the US. All that chart shows is the US spends more money on its military but has nothing to do with the percentage of Americans enlisted in the military.
Kirk's Raiders
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
Military spending is irelvent to manpower.

North Korea for example has a far highrrper capita percentage of their population in their full time military and reserves then the US. All that chart shows is the US spends more money on its military but has nothing to do with the percentage of Americans enlisted in the military.
Kirk's Raiders
it would be a rather onesided fight - manpower is relevant when the opponents have more or less equal capabilities
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
it would be a rather onesided fight - manpower is relevant when the opponents have more or less equal capabilities
No kidding . My original point was simply that the US during Reconstruction had to few soldiers to effectively counter white supremacists gangs in the South.
I also pointed out is an American tradition not to have for the most part a large standing army.
All of which has nothing to do with the Cold War tradition of buying lots of expensive toys for the military.
Kirk's Raiders
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
Also the US is committed to defending various nations such has Germany,South Korea and Japan plus keeping Iran in check among others. Trump talks about leaving NATO and getting out of the Middle East but for now it's just talk.
Kirk's Raiders
so why has every us government tried to undermine the weu? in the long run successfully if i might say so. the us never accepted any other power (on their side of the big divide) becoming bigger than a poodle. the us are not defending western europe. they always intented to use western europe as a battlefield to not bring a war with the ussr to us soil. i'm not saying that hasn't had advantages for western europe. it was a deal but then the biggest deal maker in history doesn't understand deals.

the us armed forces are the biggest and meanest dog around. so why are americans that afraid?
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
it would be a rather onesided fight - manpower is relevant when the opponents have more or less equal capabilities
Not necessarily, all an opponent has to do it make the cost so high that an attack is avoided. The NK leadership has learned that leaders of US opponents with nukes live and those without die.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
so why has every us government tried to undermine the weu? in the long run successfully if i might say so. the us never accepted any other power (on their side of the big divide) becoming bigger than a poodle. the us are not defending western europe. they always intented to use western europe as a battlefield to not bring a war with the ussr to us soil. i'm not saying that hasn't had advantages for western europe. it was a deal but then the biggest deal maker in history doesn't understand deals.

the us armed forces are the biggest and meanest dog around. so why are americans that afraid?
President Eisenhower in his farewell address quite elquently articulated the dangers of the military industrial complex. Unfortunately no listened.
Kirk's Raiders
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
President Eisenhower in his farewell address quite elquently articulated the dangers of the military industrial complex. Unfortunately no listened.
Kirk's Raiders
so your problem is your defense industry not some commies / bad guys?
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
If not, why such a large armed force when the money could be put into something else.
Where's the fun in that. Poor folks don't give money to canidates . Rich folks who own stock in military industrial companies do.
Kirk's Raiders
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
Where's the fun in that. Poor folks don't give money to canidates . Rich folks who own stock in military industrial companies do.
Kirk's Raiders
Lots of regular folks have jobs making supplies, & materials for the military.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
so your problem is your defense industry not some commies / bad guys?
Basically true. Hi Chi Minh offered President Truman Cam Ran Bay has a naval Base as long as we didn't help the French to keep control over Indo China. If North Korea had seized South Korea in 1950 so what South Korea in 1950 was an economic backwater at best.
Communism per se wasn't so bad for the US. We bought East German cars in the very late 1950s they just weren't as good as VWs. Eventually the communist countries would of became more or less capitalist. Only Cuba remains more or less Communist but at the cost of their woman between 15 to 35 having to offered their services to foreign tourists.
Kirk's Raiders
 
Last edited:

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Lots of regular folks have jobs making supplies, & materials for the military.
True on the other hand they could do more constructive activities such has medical care,social work,edu action , building homes for the homeless etc.
Kirk's Raiders
 

Viper21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
639
Reaction score
600
True on the other hand they could do more constructive activities such has medical care,social work,edu action , building homes for the homeless etc.
Kirk's Raiders
That's all debatable.

However, my point was simply, it isn't just, rich folks who own stock in military industrial companies, who benefit from the federal expenditures there. There are plenty of metro areas that are completely dependent upon military bases, & all that goes with them to support their communities. Plenty of the cash spent on the military filters to regular people who are not in the military, or stock holders in such.

Plenty of bases, support tens of thousands of citizens directly, in the communities they are located, as well as considerably more indirectly.
 
Top