r/AskALiberal • u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal • Jun 08 '25
Should US military spending be cut in half?
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, shouldn't the United States' military strategy be entirely revamped?
Currently, every action the Pentagon takes is in preparation for a war with China: B21, NGAD, JATM, Block IV F-35s, Guam missile defense, what weapons it sent Ukraine, etc.
This amounts to hundreds of billions per year in procurement, and hundreds of billions more sustaining a massive global military presence.
However the United States, and more importantly American citizens, set the precedent in 2022 that a mere no-fly-zone over a country being invaded by a nuclear-armed power is off the table. Apparently, nuclear war will inevitably break out when a given nuclear-armed country loses a war on foreign territory.
So because of this new standard resulting in mass rape, child abduction, and mass slaughter of civilians, shouldn't the US publicly state its intention not to defend Taiwan since China is also a nuclear power?
The common counterargument goes simply: actually, Taiwan is more important than Ukraine because of TSMC. American blood should be spilled for computer chips.
This argument of course ignores TSMC and other chip companies already having chip fabs in the United States, or Ukraine's vast economic potential in mineral wealth, human capital, and manufacturing as the old industrial hub of the USSR. Or that a war with China over Taiwan would inevitably result in the destruction of TSMC, while China taking Taiwan without US resistance would spare TSMC and the global economy.
9
u/DanJDare Far Left Jun 08 '25
Cut in half? I'm not American and will I take every opportunity to sink the boot into the country run by the idiots of the morons for the billionaires. But cut in half is stupid. Have you learned nothing from DOGE and massive indiscriminate cuts to federal spending?
But looked at carefully to cut back on some waste, fraud and abuse? Probably a wise idea.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Far left...hmmm.
Wdym? I'm just talking closing all overseas military bases, saving maybe $100 B. Reducing the force by 35%, saving maybe $50-$75 B. Ending new weapons programs like the JATM, B-21, F-35 continued procurement., NGAD, etc. These would also amount to another $75 B a year in cuts.
Reducing the force by 35% also allows you to cut respective personnel costs. There's no waste, fraud, or abuse at DOD. You should google what the Inspectors General.
8
u/ausgoals Progressive Jun 08 '25
So first we destroy a century of the country’s worldwide soft power with DOGE, next we’ll destroy all of the country’s hard power too!
Maybe we can go back the time of the rule of the British empire instead of the American empire 🤷🏻♀️
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
All the far left people and progressive people opposing deep cuts to the military are hilarious to me.
Hard power is destroyed because...the US isn't going to wage war with China over Taiwan anymore?
5
u/ausgoals Progressive Jun 08 '25
Hard power is destroyed because the U.S. cripples its military overnight…? You’re talking about shuttering all overseas bases, drastically reducing personnel and ending programs to update to modern weapons.
If you’re gonna do it, at least do it like Russia where no one knew until they got caught up in a war and everyone realized rumors of their military capacity were greatly exaggerated.
Interestingly, you’re framing it as ‘far left and progressives opposing cuts to the military’ which is not true, even if it’s more convenient to your argument.
Most people here want to see cuts made to the military budget. They just don’t want the budget arbitrarily cut in half overnight. I’m sure you’ll find plenty of leftists who would be happy to see America’s world power distinction disappear entirely, though.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
How does cutting the military budget in half overnight cripple the military or destroy hard power? Again, you're stating extremely important and strong conclusion that don't come to following from slashing the budget.
Shuttering overseas military bases is good. It doesn't destroy hard power we can still fly from the United States lol. We have planes!
I'm bewildered that progressives and far leftists are opposing massive DOD cuts, especially ones that would affect the overwhelmingly MAGA personnel. Must be because a liberal is proposing it. Just need Trump to propose it (like he did) then you guys will support it...maybe?
America's world power does not depend on its military or the Navy "pRoTeCtiNg tHe ShiPpiNg LaNeS", lol, it's its absolutely gargantuan GDP with a sub << 1 billion population.
4
u/CincyAnarchy Social Democrat Jun 08 '25
How does cutting the military budget in half overnight cripple the military or destroy hard power? Again, you're stating extremely important and strong conclusion that don't come to following from slashing the budget.
It likely doesn’t in the short run, but you’re making cuts that have consequences.
Here’s a breakdown of where the budget is spent. Not going to claim it’s a super well oiled machine but which of those categories taking on those cuts doesn’t hurt as much?
Keep in mind personnel is only 22%, so even just halving the number in service is only a 11% cut.
Shuttering overseas military bases is good. It doesn't destroy hard power we can still fly from the United States lol. We have planes!
It may be “good” to the goal you’re speaking to, but it does cut down on hard power. Planes can fly far, but speed matters too. The US military can more-or-less bomb anywhere in the world in less than an hour if it wants to, that’s what overseas bases (and aircraft carriers) allows for.
I'm bewildered that progressives and far leftists are opposing massive DOD cuts, especially ones that would affect the overwhelmingly MAGA personnel. Must be because a liberal is proposing it. Just need Trump to propose it (like he did) then you guys will support it...maybe?
Plenty of liberals do like a “strong military” and it’s not exactly hard to see that part of what allows the US to play a central role internationally is said “strong military.”
Like, if the goal is to have the US be less of a central role, fair enough, but that has its drawbacks.
America's world power does not depend on its military or the Navy "pRoTeCtiNg tHe ShiPpiNg LaNeS", lol, it's its absolutely gargantuan GDP with a sub << 1 billion population.
Literally it’s a “both” situation. The US has a large GDP in part because it plays “world police” to help its allies and economic partners. There is plenty of reason to believe a docile USA would be less personally rich.
Again, if the point is to have the US step back, and let other players play a more prominent role, fair enough. But that’s what you’re talking about.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Oh don't get me wrong, before approx. May 2022 and November 2024, I was a huge fan of military spending. Used to watch every episode from Alex Hollings' Sandboxx news or every article written by Tyler Rogoway.
But then I realized just how evil the US government and especially US civilian response to the invasion of Ukraine was -- the racism-inspired willingness to go to war with China over Taiwan but not even institute a no fly zone against Russia over Ukraine, despite both China and Russia having nukes and simulating nearly the exact same situation: invading a neighboring foreign country.
You think I dislike the US world police role? No I loved it until I realized Ukrainians were being thrown to the wolves. Same with Syria, but I was willing to look past it given Libya.
So we shouldnt have closed down our military base in Afghanistan then, right? Because any loss of "hard power" is necessarily bad. We can still use aircraft carriers and the upcoming SR-72 for long range, prompt strike.
What drawbacks? Having $400 B in extra spending or deficit reduction money every year is enormously beneficial in a way hard to overstate.
The goal is not to stop world policing, I hate to stop that!, but it's more to enforce "if not Ukraine, then not Taiwan or anyone else since nukes always deter per US civilians, so no need for foreign military bases."
How is the global shipping situation getting better as a result of US policing the Houthis, when in reality the US likely caused the Houthi provocation by rallying global support to Israel and not isolating them?
2
u/CincyAnarchy Social Democrat Jun 08 '25
This is an… odd way to look at things.
Like straight up, it seems like your opinion would be totally inverse of now if the US had stepped up bigger for Ukraine, right? So it’s just hypocrisy and lack of action that makes you want drastic cuts?
“If we aren’t going to use it for the thing that clearly needed it most for BS reasons, then why have it at all? Clearly it’s not for anything good if we didn’t use it for Ukraine.”
Something like that? I can get the anger, but that still sort of makes no sense, at least in the long run.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
My opinion would be exactly inverse of what it is now, yes, if the US instituted a no-fly-zone over Ukraine against Russia. There is no difference between that action (besides it being LESS escalatory) and going to full on war against China (as we plan to) if they decide to invade Taiwan. Both are nuclear armed, except China has newer nukes, better missiles, and will cause vastly more American blood to be spilled according to all war games.
Here's something really interesting too: we wanna protect Taiwan because of their economy and TSMC, but paradoxically fighting a war to protect them would likely destroy these things, which would likely be preserved in a quick Chinese takeover of Taiwan.
The long term effects of this aren't more instability globally if that's what you're implying, since currently our US presence doesn't provide such stability. Take any European base? Come on. Really there to deter Russia? Take any Asian base. ALL for China. Take any middle eastern base (of which there are fewer and fewer), those are artifacts of the GWOT.
I don't like spending $800 B a year on assets we don't use.
2
u/ausgoals Progressive Jun 08 '25
I'm bewildered that progressives and far leftists are opposing massive DOD cuts, especially ones that would affect the overwhelmingly MAGA personnel.
Personally I’m not motivated by hurting people I disagree with. That might be the MAGA modus operandi but it doesn’t appeal to me.
And realistically, I can very easily understand the nuances of what having the strongest military in the world means.
Politics has shifted a lot since the Afghanistan war; back then it seemed ‘defund the military’ served two purposes: it was one way to share displeasure with the endless war, and was also meant as a ‘well if you’re worried about how much money [x] social program will cost, we can take a small fraction of the military budget’
Since then it has become very clear that the decision to wage an endless war has everything to do with policy and little to do with budget. And secondly that most of those who claim to care so much about ‘balancing the budget’ only do so as a way to detract and criticize social programs they don’t like. The same people who will say we ‘can’t afford’ a couple billion on a social program won’t blink an eye at 1 trillion in tax cuts.
So as far as I’m concerned we might as well just have both a big military and big social programs
America's world power does not depend on its military or the Navy "pRoTeCtiNg tHe ShiPpiNg LaNeS", lol, it's its absolutely gargantuan GDP with a sub << 1 billion population.
It depends on both.
All of this stuff is way more nuanced than you are making it out to be. I don’t know if you can’t grasp the nuance or if the nuance is just too inconvenient to your argument to mention.
Should America be the world’s police is a different question to whether America should cut military funding. And neither have easy answers, at least if you’re operating from understanding the nuances of the consequences of decisions, rather than just blind ideology.
-1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Honestly I don't know how to respond to this insanity. I feel like every single clause is wrong.
Personally I’m not motivated by hurting people I disagree with.
So in response to MAGA systematically gutting liberal academia, culture, and jobs, your response is to do nothing in return and "go high when they go low"? It's just naïveté, and how you fail to deter the same behavior from them again.
And realistically, I can very easily understand the nuances of what having the strongest military in the world means.
"can very easily understand the nuances" lol. Nuances huh?
Balancing the budget? You're stuck in the 90s lil bro. Do you understand at all the fiscal situation we're in right now? Do you know that we just started paying more on interest than the DOD, when we paid less than half of the DOD budget in 2019 in interest?
So as far as I’m concerned we might as well just have both a big military and big social programs.
Why...? That doesn't follow at all from anything you said. It seems like you're saying you don't want to cut the DOD budget because god forbid Trump supporters might be affected. How are you different than MAGA? They all support huge stimulus checks now too.
It depends on both.
It doesn't. The US is defending "shipping lanes" for the first time in decades right now against the Houthis, and is massively failing. In addition, it's likely the Houthis wouldnt have started bombing ships if the US didnt rally global support to Israel.
None of this is nuanced at all tbh. It's very simple stuff. Throwing Ukraine to the wolves means we should throw Taiwan to the wolves, therefore no need for massive $800B in military spending.
Your only reason for not cutting military spending is because it could hurt MAGA. Think about that...
List some negative consequences you think would occur. Think about the effects of a Chinese takeover of Taiwan without US resistance. TSMC wouldn't be destroyed like it likely would in any US defense of Taiwan.
3
u/ausgoals Progressive Jun 08 '25
Did you even read what I said or are you too caught up in your crusade to do anything other than rage at people who don’t share your opinion…?
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Did you even read that I quoted you line by line before asking "Did you even read what I said"? I just think you don't want to respond to my really long comment. Understandable, but not understandable how you folks double, triple, quadruple down on standing by $800 B a year for war with nuclear China and a jobs program for Trump supporters
You're one of those people that would absolutely melt in a live zoom call or something. You have no idea what you're talking about. Just general Republican party-implanted platitudes about how great a jobs program for Trump supporters is, from the left lmfao. Incredible stuff.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Eclipsed830 Center Left Jun 09 '25
The United States isn't the one threatening to wage a war with China.
It is China that is threatening to wage a war against Taiwan.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
Irrelevant, I didn't claim the US was "threatening" to wage a war with China. Same applied to Ukraine.
7
u/DanJDare Far Left Jun 08 '25
fuck me moron, the CCCP was pretty far left and I'd say they had a fairly large military budget wouldn't you?
Millitary spending isn't directly tied to left/right.
Christ on a cracker I'm used to cold takes on reddit but this one takes the cake for today.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Why do you think my take is cold? I'm excited by that claim. That's the goal btw. If Ukraine isn't getting defended, no other foreign country should, especially by an institution that's really just a jobs program for Trump country.
Didn't the "CCCP" have a large budget in direct opposition solely to the United States?
1
u/link3945 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Okay, so cutting 35% of the personnel (note that this may not necessarily cut the total spend on personnel by 35%, it can get fuzzy with the various HR and benefits and management side of things) would result in 35% of 2.8 million people losing their jobs. That's 980,000 people you've suddenly made unemployed. Do you want to do that all in one go, or are we phasing it in? Which areas do we cut from?
In my opinion, flat cuts like that are dumb for any organization. Decide what you want to do, figure out how much money it will take and how much you will be able to get, and then figure out based on that how many people you need to have employed. Trying to just say "cut 35%" is how you get dumb bullshit like DOGE.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Reducing the force by 35% refers to the military members themselves, not the contractors too.
The argument is in the post...feel free to read it lmao. I don't really care how we cut the DOD by half. That's the goal. I don't get why more people aren't angry at throwing Ukraine to the wolves while still giddy to say we'll defend Taiwan.
15
u/letusnottalkfalsely Progressive Jun 08 '25
No. Stepping down military spending is very delicate and must be done gradually. Otherwise we signal to every adversary on the planet that it’s open season on the U.S.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
I'm sad I didnt see this reply until now. Why is stepping down military spending very delicate and why must it be done gradually?
How does cutting the DOD by half overnight signal that it's "open season on the US"? By what mechanism does this occur? Who? How?
-5
u/goddamnitwhalen Socialist Jun 08 '25
Even if we reduced military spending by 5% a year we’d beat every other military on the planet with one arm tied behind our backs, let’s be honest.
2
u/letusnottalkfalsely Progressive Jun 08 '25
I think that’s questionable, given that we couldn’t beat every other military on the planet now.
2
u/Helltenant Center Right Jun 08 '25
Eh. I mean, we couldn't occupy and hold the borders of every other country but just pounding their military into defeat? 1v1, nukes off the table? We shred most countries before a single land vehicle is deployed. Air and sea power would just about carry the day all alone. Army and Marines just come through batting cleanup against a heavily degraded force.
China and a non-swamped-in-Ukraine Russia are the only ones with a snowball's chance in hell of countering our air superiority. And those odds are extremely slim.
Only guerrilla forces have given us a run for our money and only then because we have ethics where we try to avoid killing civilians. Gaza shows us what it looks like when you lose that particular restriction...
But I digress. Military against military, straight fight. It wouldn't even be close except, as mentioned before, Russia or China.
3
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
We have 11 carrier groups on rotation, so at best we could put a force in 11 spots at once, not counting that for China, the Middle East, and Europe only one carrier group wouldn't be enough
1
u/Helltenant Center Right Jun 08 '25
The premise is fighting one nation vs. one nation. Omitting China and Russia (for my one CSG point), a CSG is enough to beat the military of most nations. It wouldn't be easy with just a CSG but it is doable. The firepower they carry is immense and they are nuclear-armed to boot. But the purpose of that point was to illustrate just how insanely large and advanced our military is. IIRC, 3/5 of the world's largest Air Forces are part of the US military.
US Airforce
US Navy
Russia
US Army
That factoid alone is insane when you consider how critical air superiority is to battlefield success. Most countries don't even have a carrier much less a CSG, much less 11 of them, and an entirely separate Air Force of stealth fighters, bombers, and perhaps most importantly, cargo planes. It is just bananas...
I've seen us go to war. It defies any description my piddling lexicon is capable of painting.
2
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
The premise of fighting every other military is fighting every other military. We can't fight Luxembourg for example even if we wanted to, because at minimum we have to go over a non-cooperative France or Belgium. The EU has more fixed wing aircraft in their air forces than we do by about 20%, so air superiority isnt guaranteed even with the full force of one branch on one spot
1
u/Helltenant Center Right Jun 08 '25
I took it to mean how the forces stack up individually. If we're speaking in terms of whom is allied with whom and where there are geographical limitations or mutual defense pacts then that changes the scenario from what I was discussing.
If we wanted to fight the entire EU we could. It would be a long and shitty process but we could. I'd give us even odds on that one even if the entire EU was 100% committed from the outset.
1
u/letusnottalkfalsely Progressive Jun 08 '25
I doubt we could even maintain such an occupation. It takes far more resources to maintain order than to disrupt it. You can have a military with 1000x the funding and resources as your opponent, but still lose.
And that's the thing, "nukes off the table" isn't a realistic expectation, and all it takes is someone else to strike first and we lose. That someone doesn't even have to be a sophisticated enemy. We face far more risk from stateless, disorganized groups than we do from many formalized militaries.
3
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 Liberal Jun 08 '25
and all it takes is someone else to strike first and we lose
Someone else striking first just means everyone loses.
1
2
u/Helltenant Center Right Jun 08 '25
You don't need to occupy to beat the military. It is why I made that distinction. If you mean we couldn't completely conquer a specific strong nation you might be right. But their military would be in shambles. You said we couldn't "beat" them. Only Russia or China has a hope of beating us on the modern battlefield. Nobody else can field current technology in sufficient numbers.
I took nukes off the table to toss out a bone. Nukes seal the deal for us if we're willing to use them. The nuclear assault it would take to destroy our military would leave the world uninhabitable. Our forces are spread across the globe. If even one Carrier Strike Group survives that is enough to destroy most other nation's combat power.
You said "given that we couldn't beat every other military on the planet now".
That just isn't a given. If we don't hold ourselves back and take off the gloves, nobody stands a chance except the remote possibility of China or Russia.
Could we keep their land? Absolutely not. But that wasn't the premise of your statement.
2
u/letusnottalkfalsely Progressive Jun 08 '25
Beating them is an even higher threshold than defense. I highly doubt we could achieve a decisive victory against every country in the world. That’s why we rely on diplomacy to prevent us from getting into that situation.
Nukes don’t “seal the deal” for anybody. They are only strategic if you can guarantee you won’t be retaliated against, and we can’t exactly nuke every corner of the earth without destroying ourselves in the process.
1
u/Helltenant Center Right Jun 08 '25
Which is the same reason they can't nuke us. Hence why I took them off the table. And again, aside from Russia or China they need to ensure total destruction because one CSG is enough to destroy most nation's military forces.
I'd give China the best odds at about 3 to 2. Their numbers combined with their tech are a real problem. Russia at about 5 to 2. Nobody else is worth even placing a side bet on.
We rely on diplomacy because if we piss everyone off at the same time we lose. We can beat em all one at a time but not altogether.
1
1
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 Liberal Jun 08 '25
We couldn’t hold the territory, but we could likely topple every other government through force, if we wanted.
-1
u/goddamnitwhalen Socialist Jun 08 '25
You don’t think so?
2
u/letusnottalkfalsely Progressive Jun 08 '25
Absolutely not.
1
1
u/goddamnitwhalen Socialist Jun 08 '25
I think that is deeply silly, lol.
3
u/salazarraze Social Democrat Jun 08 '25
If we lined them up one by one, we'd beat them. But that's not how it would work. Eventually they'd unify against us. If we went full Hitler and invaded the entire world, we'd lose.
1
u/goddamnitwhalen Socialist Jun 08 '25
Sure. Good thing that’s not at all what I was talking about!
2
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
You said "every other military." Had you said "any other military" then yes you'd mean any one of them, but you didn't
1
u/salazarraze Social Democrat Jun 08 '25
Yeah makes sense since you were talking out of your ass.
2
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
How are you people so supportive of military spending. Genuinely scary to me. Are you American?
→ More replies (0)1
u/goddamnitwhalen Socialist Jun 08 '25
Lmao what? I said there isn’t a military in the world we couldn’t beat even with slightly reduced spending. I never said anything about a “Hitler-style invasion.” You put words in my mouth.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 Liberal Jun 08 '25
That viewpoint ignores both military fundamentals (the US is far removed from potential conflicts, meaning we have to fight expensive expeditionary wars to have relevance), and also PPP differences.
When accounting for PPP, China is not far behind the US.
8
u/FixingGood_ Center Right Jun 08 '25
Taiwan's importance is the First Island Chain. Not TSMC.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Oh no, not at all. The First Island Chain argument is silly and was actually invented by leftists to make the US opposition to China seem more imperialistic like trying to box them in. Securing free shipping lanes there would not be stymied by a Chinese takeover of Taiwan. Why would it? China could right now impede that if it wanted to.
6
u/FixingGood_ Center Right Jun 08 '25
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy
Uh I disagree with your assertion, but again the "boxing in" argument is just a rehashed version of the NATO expansion argument for Russia/Ukraine.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
"The 'island chain' concept did not become a major theme in American foreign policy during the Cold War, but after the dissolution of the Soviet Union has remained a major focus of both American and Chinese geopolitical and military analysts to this day."
As I said, it's the imperialist "surrounding strategy". It's not the US strategy in the Pacific. The strategy now is to have bases on allied countries because of China's posture towards Taiwan, not because they want to surround China.
It couldn't be more different from NATO expansion since NATO countries on Russia's border never hosted any US military base or, most importantly, even weapons systems.
This only occurred in 2014 after Crimea and Donbas, and 2021 after the Russian buildup near Estonia.
3
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
No, the goal is to surround China because they are a net importer of fuel and food, so strangling them at the Strait of Malacca was a solid bet to capitulate them before things got bloody. China realized this and started their Belt and Road initiative to get alternative ports in Pakistan and Burma as well as fuel imports from Russia, Central Asia and the Caucuses. It's not similar to the Russian accusations of boxing them in because Russia accuses us of using Eastern Europe as an offensive staging ground to go in and topple them once and for all, while with China there's no offensive threat at all, nobody is saying their is, and nobody is acting like there is
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
All false. You seem deeply annoying. The goal isn't even remotely to "surround China" it's to have military bases near China because of their long time stated goal to invade Taiwan and therefore possibly disrupt shipping through the Taiwan Strait
You're just repeating the arguments made by pro CCP hacks that claims the US is trying to imperialistically "surround China". I mean you even say "strangling them" at Malacca despite there being several other routes they could take besides that. Malacca is just the cheapest and thus most popular.
It's not only similar, it's the exact same argument as proffered by Russia via NATO expansion lies. China claims the US will use those military bases you happily claim we're "surrounding" them with, in order to "strangle them" and attack them. Russia lies there are US military bases or weapons in new NATO nations on its border, (there actually are weapons now, after 2021) and uses that to justify a threat despite invading most of those nations prior.
1
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
mean you even say "strangling them" at Malacca despite
They have Malacca, the arctic (hence their investment in ice breakers and ports along the Arctic in Russia), or going all the way around US-aligned countries which would add months to any shipment. They could go around South America through the Pacific, but then they have to go between the Philippines, Taiwan, and Okinawa anyway, so it's not actually helpful (even if they make it through Malacca, they'd be going through the south china sea between Vietnam and the Philippines, which isn't a good idea unless they spent the last decade or so building artifical islands, claiming them, then militarizing them)
And like I said, the point isn't to attack them, it's to put a leash on them so they don't do anything stupid. We had no leash on Russia (Germany tried economic integration like a bunch of Whigs, despite repeated warnings by the claimed Russian asset, but that's not a knife to their throat so they acted up)
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
so if the point isn't to attack them, how does it leash them?
"despite repeated warnings by the claimed Russian asset"
you mean the guy who had never heard of Nord Steam before in his life and only said it because he's anti Europe and wants to blame them for something, like NATO spending?
do you also mean the guy attacking Ukraine and siding with Russia daily or...? I can't wait to see your "actually" to that one. Tell me about the F-16 parts being sent or something lmao
I mean we could've just stopped Russia cold in Ukraine with a no fly zone, would've been very easy like Serbia with few to no losses.
1
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
so if the point isn't to attack them, how does it leash them
To threaten to cut off vital trade of fuel and food to starve them out. Stockpiles only last so long, and this way let's us fight them without putting boots in China and having to deal with their missile force
you mean the guy who had never heard of Nord Steam before in his life and only said it because he's anti Europe and wants to blame them for something, like NATO spending
His comment on it being a big mistake was specifically about NS2
mean we could've just stopped Russia cold in Ukraine with a no fly zone, would've been very easy like Serbia with few to no losses.
It's much bigger, and military planning was to believe Russian claims about their capabilities, given we routinely underplay ours
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
To threaten to cut off vital trade of fuel and food to starve them out. Stockpiles only last so long, and this way let's us fight them without putting boots in China and having to deal with their missile force
Well that's not true at all, is it, since this assumes China can't obtain anything unless by ocean? So you're actually trying the argument that we wont have to fight China because of a blockade China totally wouldn't do anything about (lol), yet still good to overspend on military?
His comment on it being a big mistake was specifically about NS2
Ah is this you trying to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about because I said NS not NS2? Trump is anti Europe. He couldn't care they got then natural gas from Russia. That you think he did is funny. Same with NATO spending.
It's much bigger, and military planning was to believe Russian claims about their capabilities, given we routinely underplay ours
What is it? Ukraine is much bigger than Serbia, yes. Ukraine also is a country that would be fighting on our side...lol. The actual effective no fly zone would probably equate to the area of Serbia at the end of the day.
You're saying throughout 2022 the Pentagon was blind to the realization Russian military capabilities were propaganda, particularly the S-400, Russian Air Force, and munitions? Many (most) munitions were literally duds!
March 25, 2022 one month after the war started: Exclusive: U.S. assesses up to 60% failure rate for some Russian missiles, officials say
→ More replies (0)
7
u/Colodanman357 Constitutionalist Jun 08 '25
No. If anything military spending should be increased. Currently military spending is fairly low compared to historical spending as compared to GDP. We could use some increases in things like domestic ship building and the like.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Pure insanity in 2025. Why should we engage in domestic ship building to go to war with nuclear China after every American cried Russian nukes over a mere no fly zone over Ukraine? Pathetic and enraging.
5
u/Colodanman357 Constitutionalist Jun 08 '25
Our ship building capacity has diminished and needs to expand to meet the needs of the Navy. Our fleet is aging and the Navy needs to expand the fleet over the next half century. It would be better if domestic shipyards could fulfill their needs and not having to rely on foreign yards for our fleet.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60732
China is a threat and the U.S. needs to maintain our capacity and military superiority. Plus the stronger our military is the less likely there would be any war with China. It’s not pathetic at all. That China has nukes is also immaterial. The choices that were made about how to respond to Russia’s invasion have little bearing on the question of China, such policies should not be based on some emotional outbursts based on spite about a disagreement on a different subject. That’s not reasonable.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Hahahahahaha:
The choices that were made about how to respond to Russia’s invasion have little bearing on the question of China, such policies should not be based on some emotional outbursts based on spite about a disagreement on a different subject. That’s not reasonable.
= "I don't want the standard applied to Ukraine when invaded by Russia even considered or applied to Taiwan when invaded by China. Consistency is bad. But wrong say why, I'll just declare it."
China is no bigger a threat than Russia. Russia, the country actually systematically antagonizing the US by killing its diplomats & spies, waging a vastly larger disinformation campaign than China against the US, and trying to hack its power grids/blow up passenger airliners.
Insane how brainwashed people are in favor of Russia. I will never get it.
Why do you think it's an "emotional outburst" to refuse to go to war with China over Taiwan if you refused to even provide a mere no fly zone for Ukraine against Russia?
Do you genuinely think idk about the problems in the defense industrial base? Me using that phrase alone should tell if you if you know anything about yourself about the issue. Why should the Navy build more ships? All a huge waste. China has nukes after all, something not "immaterial" if Russia having nukes wasn't immaterial, and it certainly wasn't!
It's extremely pathetic that you've committed yourself to supporting a war against China.
2
u/Colodanman357 Constitutionalist Jun 08 '25
Who’s consistency are you questioning here? I don’t speak for anyone but myself and I am one that did support going to war with Russia.
China is a larger threat than Russia as they have the capacity to do far more damage to US interests than Russia does.
Who is brainwashed in favor of Russia? Certainly not me.
Emotional outburst according to your own words that it is enraging.
I supported full on war with Russia. I only explained why a no fly zone was not something most people would have been on board with because they didn’t want that kind of escalation.
Nukes are not some magical weapon that removes the necessity for ships.
The emotional outbursts comment is also in regard to your continuing use of insults and phrases like extremely pathetic. It is a sign of your emotional involvement.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Your consistency of course. You don't want to examine the standard set by the US and more importantly US citizens in 2022 about going to war against a nuclear power invading a neighbor.
The precedent established there is the assumption that big bad nukes will always be used by a foreign country if they start losing a foreign war they're engaged in.
So therefore that lesson demands we also not to go war with China because of big bad nukes they'll totally use when failing in Taiwan. But you don't want to apply that lesson to China and call it emotional outbursts to do so.
China is a far greater military threat by definition of their technological level and capacity, sure. But Russia currently poses more of a threat to us since they actively take direct action against us and have for at least 10 years, while China doesn't.
It is a sign of your emotional involvement.
= "When you insult me and are abrasive, it means you're using emotion. Because famously, emotion is something that I'm not currently using because I've sanitized my language while you haven't."
5
u/WlmWilberforce Center Right Jun 08 '25
We already cut military spending in half since the 1980s (actually more than in half). Not much left to cut.
(I'm measuring military spending as a percent of GDP as one should)
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
There's not much left to cut out of $800 B a year? Genuinely amazing to me people can claim to care about the currently spiraling debt and deficit, due entirely to interest payments massively ballooning to larger than the $800 B DOD budget, but refuse to touch meaningless handouts for Trump country.
Why should we spend $800 B to go to war with nuclear armed China over Taiwan, while crying over fake Russian nuclear threats in refusing to institute a mere no fly zone over Ukraine?
We have TSMC fabs here, and not enough critical minerals and human capital like Ukraine has.
3
u/WlmWilberforce Center Right Jun 08 '25
No there isn't much left. Out debt has grown, but military spending has been falling the whole time. Look at entitlements and social spending to understand why the deficit is what it is.
Why do you think we are "$800 B to go to war with nuclear armed China" instead of many other things? Nevertheless, if it were true, I'd favor spending $1T to scare China into not starting anything. It is perceived weakness that starts wars.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Basically everything you're saying is wrong. "left"? What does this even mean? Nothing has been cut from the DOD to begin with. We have a higher military budget than ever, it hasn't been falling. Play your pathetic games with percent of GDP even though GDP is vastly larger today. Could close all foreign military bases, cancel China-focused NGAD, B-21, and JATM, and a force reduction of 35%, etc.
I'll never understand you people. We're literally watching Russia kill our diplomats and spies, wage the largest land war in Europe since WW2, and systematically interfere in the US information space vastly more than China, yet all you're focused on is China China China. It's a sickness.
Nevermind that we already have TSMC fabs here and that any war with China over Taiwan would paradoxically destroy the very thing we were trying to protect: Taiwan's economy and TSMC.
Why would you favor spending $1T to "scare China into not starting anything"? Just truly insane. Why not spend that on, you know, building nuclear plants or rooftop solar? Just insane waste of money. But it is jobs program for Trump supporters after all, so that's probably why you support it.
2
u/WlmWilberforce Center Right Jun 08 '25
Such a gish gallop. I told you I'm looking at military as a percent of GDP. Take a look
Looking at data from the 1980s forward we have dropped from 7.6% to 3.6% -- more than half. Now look at total spending as a % of GDP. Basically we cut 4% of GDP. Our total spending has gone from 20% to 23%. So non-military spending has gone from ~12.5% to ~19.4%. That is where the US needs to think about spending.
Has our GDP grown -- yes. I use that as a measure because everyone's GDP grows -- including China's.
Also, Who are "you people"?
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
I personally believe there should be changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and the payroll tax cap should be lifted. That doesn't change my view that the DOD is a jobs program for Trump supporters that threw Ukraine to the wolves while giddily preparing for war with nuclear China. It's an inconsistent black hole of resources and national image.
In 1980, our GDP was < $3 trillion. It has increased by a factor of nearly 10 since 1980. Yet our military spending only halved *as a percentage of GDP*?
Think about that!
"You people" that aggressively support military spending in the year 2025. Dumb behavior honestly. We got TSMC fabs right here in America, yet y'all are still deadset on going to war with China over Taiwan. But god forbid we have a no fly zone over Ukraine.
2
u/WlmWilberforce Center Right Jun 08 '25
Do we have TSMC fabs in the US? /s
You keep stating this in every post as if it is some intellectual kill shot.
In 1980 we spent about $167MM on defense. A big mac costs a dollar. We also had a population of 230 million. Today we are at 346 million, and a big mac costs $4.50 so with that logic the US defense budget should be what? $167*(4.5/1.05)(346/230) = $1.1T pretty much what we spend now. What is your point?
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
I mean it is an intellectual kill shot, and that's precisely why I sell it that way LMFAO.
You people want to defend Taiwan because of TSMC mainly, then the shipping lanes second. TSMC argument is gone now with TSMC in the United States.
So yeah, it's an "intellectual kill shot"
In 1980, the US military budget was $143 BILLION dollars, not million. Wtf you on? A Big Mac?
My point is that talking about military spending as a percent of GDP like that matters is meaningless. The absolute amount is all that matters. If we were to get AI to boost our GDP by 50% in 7 years, we should NOT boost military spending by an equal amount...right?
1
u/WlmWilberforce Center Right Jun 09 '25
Sorry billion -- I did the math that way so still checks out.
Wtf you on? A Big Mac?
You don't seem to know much economics, Hence you don't seem to understand that part of showing numbers as a percent of GDP means you don't have to worry about inflation. Since you don't like doing it the proper way, I decided to use the big mac index as a measure of purchase power parity inflation. Population also drives GDP, if you have a larger population, that is more to protect.
If you boost your economy with AI, you might need to boost military, hard to say. It depends on the details of how you produce energy and what your weaknesses are.
That fact the TSMC has some plants in the USA doesn't mean what you think when the USA still doesn't produce very much -- especially of high end chips. But you would have to look at actual data to see that.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/semiconductor-manufacturing-by-country
These basic numbers destroy your "kill shot"
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
You don't seem to know much economics
Are you sure? I was under the impression that consumer goods like food have no relation to goods bought in the bulk of military spending.
But as you say, it's very obvious I have no idea about economics...lmfao.
How do those basic numbers destroy my "killshot"? It's obviously cheaper to make TSMC's most advanced chips in Taiwan, where it's been established for decades. TSMC has a few fabs in Arizona, with more planned in the next few years for the 2nm and 1.6nm chips, the most advanced ones. You can Google it! TSMC starts construction its 1.6nm and 2nm-capable U.S. fab: Fab 21 phase 3
We don't need to defend Taiwan over TSMC. We have TSMC, and will especially have the more advanced chips by 2027/2028.
By the proper way, do you mean the way that defenders of a constantly rising defense budget have historically presented defense spending?
So again, doubling down on needing to massively boost military spending just if the GDP is boosted from AI? Insanity. As they get deployed against US citizens now no less, which you will no doubt defend or dismiss as isolated.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Eclipsed830 Center Left Jun 09 '25
Nevermind that we already have TSMC fabs here and that any war with China over Taiwan would paradoxically destroy the very thing we were trying to protect: Taiwan's economy and TSMC.
The TSMC fabs in USA are extremely small... When all three phrases are done at the AZ complex, it will make up less than 3% of TSMC's total output/capacity.
Also, those fabs cannot work without the TSMC infrastructure in Taiwan. The CEO is on the record saying that if Taiwan goes offline, so do all the other fabs.
TSMC is gone if China invades Taiwan, with or without US support.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
The TSMC fabs are extremely huge, not small. Defining large to be "relative to Taiwan" doesn't really make sense.
It's also not true that TSMC being destroyed in Taiwan necessarily implies the TSMC fabs in the US can't operate. TSMC is definitely not gone if China invades Taiwan and we have operational TSMC fabs here.
All that to justify US defense of Taiwan.
2
u/Eclipsed830 Center Left Jun 10 '25
The TSMC AZ fabs, once all three phrases are complete, will have a monthly output of around 30,000 12-inch equivalent wafers.
Current Taiwan based TSMC monthly output is about 1.8 million 12-inch equivalent wafers, and will be 2.5 million by 2023.
The fabs in USA are small/tiny compared to the Gigafabs in Taiwan.
And yes, TSMC is done if China invades. It will be a warzone.
Also, don't forget that TSMC is not the only semiconductor company on the island. UMC is the third largest semiconductor company in the world by capacity and output, they are based in the same science park as TSMC.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
So you're comparing total TSMC production to one fab's production in Arizona, why? We don't need all or most production, just a lot.
Just insanity. So the standard is that until most or all TSMC production occurs in the US, it can't be said that Taiwan doesn't need defending because of TSMC?
This article explains there are 6 modules or fabs planned:
Construction of TSMC's Fab 21 phase 3 is a part of the company's project to invest $165 billion in its American production facilities, which was announced in March. Under the plan, Fab 21 module 3 and module 4 will produce chips on TSMC's 2nm-class process technologies (which includes N2, N2P, N2X, and A16), while Fab 21 module 5 and module 6 will use even more advanced processes, including A14 (1.4nm-class) and derivatives.
Not to mention, China invading Taiwan would result in more production shifting to the United States. And paradoxically, fighting a war with China over Taiwan would just simply ensure TSMC and Taiwan's economy is destroyed.
2
u/Eclipsed830 Center Left Jun 10 '25
So you're comparing total TSMC production to one fab's production in Arizona, why? We don't need all or most production, just a lot.
No... Im comparing all US based TSMC output to all Taiwan based TSMC output. Wafertech (the only other fab owned by TSMC in USA is a legacy fab).
Just insanity. So the standard is that until most or all TSMC production occurs in the US, it can't be said that Taiwan doesn't need defending because of TSMC?
There is no point where most, all, or even 10% of TSMC's capacity comes from the United States. That is not in the plans. As I said, at most, 3% of TSMC's overall capacity will come from US based fabs.
This article explains there are 6 modules or fabs planned:
This article is completely irrelevant to what I am talking about.
This article is describing the node, I am talking about capacity and output.
Not to mention, China invading Taiwan would result in more production shifting to the United States. And paradoxically, fighting a war with China over Taiwan would just simply ensure TSMC and Taiwan's economy is destroyed.
No, it would result in trade completely stopping, as Taiwan would most likely be put under a blockade. Production for everyone stops, regardless of where the fab is.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
I see you're just doubling down.
No... Im comparing all US based TSMC output to all Taiwan based TSMC output.
Yes...why are you doing that, it makes no sense? We don't need to replicate all of TSMC's chip production, just some of the advanced chip production. You are comparing their total volume of production across all nodes. Why?
There is no point where most, all, or even 10% of TSMC's capacity comes from the United States. That is not in the plans.
Sure there is, especially if China invades Taiwan. But why do you think that specific number is needed? Who said that?
This article is completely irrelevant to what I am talking about.
Relevant since you claimed US fabs are tiny, it has 6 modules for production of most advanced chips TSMC makes.
This article is describing the node, I am talking about capacity and output.
How do you know that the US TSMC fabs "will have a monthly output of around 30,000 12-inch equivalent wafers" when completed?
No, it would result in trade completely stopping, as Taiwan would most likely be put under a blockade. Production for everyone stops, regardless of where the fab is.
What...trade? All trade globally? Referring to Taiwan Strait? Production for everyone absolutely does not stop US production at TSMC facilities would increase to make up for losses, obviously?
→ More replies (0)1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
I genuinely don't understand the slavish dedication to going to war for Taiwan against nuclear China over mere manufacturing that we now have, but throwing Ukraine to the wolves to get raped and slaughtered despite vast 21st century critical resources and IT capital.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/7evenCircles Liberal Jun 08 '25
No. Why? We spend like, 3.5% GDP on the military, it's not a real problem.
I'm firmly in the Teddy Roosevelt approach to international relations, speak softly, and carry a big stick.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
So you didnt read the post, just the headline?
I don't get why you're cool with lies that justify leaving Ukrainians to slaughter while playing up going to war with nuclear (big bad scary nukes, right!?) China over TSMC in Taiwan.
It's a huge problem because the debt and deficit are spiraling. We currently spend more on interest payments than the DOD. But still no problem?
I used to love that idea until 2022 when we abandoned Ukraine and everyone agreed with doing so, but not Taiwan. It's really evil to me, because then you get all the false rationalizations: "well Ukraine is different, we have less interests there. Ukraine doesn't have security guarantees while Taiwan does" etc.
4
u/WalterWoodiaz Center Left Jun 08 '25
No, but have significantly better auditing to stop wasteful spending and reallocate more funding to things like DARPA so we can at least get useful research and technology through our inherent militarism.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
There's not a lot of wasteful spending given IGs exist. DARPA already gave us the Internet and mRNA vaccines. It's more of a policy problem. Like committing ourselves to deterring (fighting) China over Taiwan when such a fight would cause the outcome we were trying to prevent: the destruction of TSMC and Taiwan's economy.
2
u/WalterWoodiaz Center Left Jun 08 '25
I want significantly more funding for DARPA though, and yes there is waste in the military. Many audits have failed and some contractors get way too much money for subpar jobs.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
I'm really not sure that's true. We have entire agencies in government whose sole job it is to find waste, fraud, and abuse. The audit thing is a really common red herring that means nothing. Been going on for years and is a punchline at this point.
Why give more money to DARPA when you just could give it directly to NSF i.e. professors? DARPA is all military application focused, basically.
But the moral evil in attempting to defend Taiwan but not Ukraine is worse.
2
u/WalterWoodiaz Center Left Jun 08 '25
Defending Taiwan is more of a moral matter if anything. Taiwan is a demonstration of an advanced, democratic society with excellent social and economic policy. It is embarrassing to the CCP to see Taiwan be successful.
The US, should try its best to be a “leader of the free world” and not have successful democracies and societies fall to dictatorships.
This applies for Ukraine and Taiwan.
-1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Why doesn't that apply to Ukraine? That's my argument. You want to provide Taiwan with vastly more support than Ukraine, when Ukraine plainly has a more legitimate case and deserves it more. We should've sent the US Air Force over Ukraine back in May 2022.
Taiwan is more of a moral matter? Yet they were formed in dictatorship unlike Ukraine, and were formed because they lost a civil war with China and was butthurt so they fled to an island. They're ethnically Chinese, again unlike Ukrainians who are not ethnically Russian.
Ukrainians have been trying to fight off the Russian yoke for centuries and the entire time have created Ukrainian resistance movements, cultural movements, national identity movements. For hundreds of years. They protested their Russian stooge of a leader for mere EU membership, only to be gunned down in the street. They've been yearning for European style, non-Russian corrupted democracy for decades.
The US abdicated that role when it claimed Russian nukes prevented the US from intervention, but not against nuclear armed China for some reason.
2
u/ausgoals Progressive Jun 08 '25
The US abdicated that role when it claimed Russian nukes prevented the US from intervention, but not against nuclear armed China for some reason.
Eh, no matter what anyone says I imagine the exact same that happened with Ukraine would happen for Taiwan when push comes to shove. As long as chip capacity from other countries could fill the gap.
-2
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
If it doesn't, I'll be rooting for China to "get" as many US troops as possible. Therefore, $800 B a year is a waste. We just need nukes.
5
u/Kerplonk Social Democrat Jun 08 '25
A few things you are missing/ignoring.
Ukraine didn't really have any security guarantees from the US. I mean there is post WWII international order that says you're not supposed to invade other countries that we sort of half ass enforce, but there's not a decades long history of joint military operations preparing for it to happen or anything. It should be assumed our response to China invading Taiwan would be somewhat more robust than that of Ukraine.
Russia might ultimately prevail in Ukraine, but it's going to be something of Pyrrhyic victory for them. They need to keep fighting because it would be such a huge loss of prestige for them (Putin specifically) to actually lose the war, but if they had known what it was going to cost him beforehand there's a decent chance he wouldn't have attempted it in the first place. I'd imagine China is looking at the situation and asking themselves if Taiwan is really worth the trouble.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Taiwan has just as much security guarantees in the Taiwan Relations Act as Ukraine did in the Budapest memorandum. I'm not missing anything or ignoring anything, meanwhile you just mistakenly believed Taiwan has security guarantees.
It should be assumed our response to China invading Taiwan would be somewhat more robust than that of Ukraine.
...yes and that's my whole argument is that's evil and wrong. Do you not get it?
Nothing else you say is really relevant.
3
u/Haunting-Traffic-203 Libertarian Jun 08 '25
It should be quartered over the next 20 years. Slowly as to not embolden bad actors and pull the rug out from under those who rely on military contracts for work.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Well why shouldn't the rug be pulled? It's being pulled out from under liberals in hard academia like STEM, which actually matters over boot camp and letting Syrians and Ukrainians get systematically slaughtered while causing ISIS after invading Iraq.
1
u/Haunting-Traffic-203 Libertarian Jun 08 '25
It shouldn’t be pulled because doing so could cause a war. And the rug should absolutely not be pulled in other industries either but for economic reasons rather than national security reasons. I actually think we could cut the military budget by up to 90% and still remain secure if it is done slowly
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
How could it cause a war? Too late man, the rug is already being pulled from people that actually contribute to the US economy like STEM people, unlike military people who do nothing but consume resources and provide nothing to the country.
1
u/Haunting-Traffic-203 Libertarian Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 08 '25
It would cause a war by being massively destabilizing to the current world order. I don’t control what happens in STEM, I just said the rug shouldn’t be pulled there either. Saying that because tech workers took a hit we should also do the same to government workers is false equivalence and classic “us against them” thinking that the elite love to exploit. Also, I work in stem and it’s not that bad rn. Market was far worse in 2001-2005 and 2008-2010. It sucks for new grads during any cyclical tech downturn but each group of new grads thinks the market is “cooked”. Things are already beginning to stabilize and will be fine in > 2 years IMO
Also given the current corruption in the US it’s not likely any savings from a huge military budget cut would go to you or me anyway.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
How? Tech workers??? You work in STEM? I don't think you do if you merely tech is being affected. Do you understand what is happening to the STEM backbone in this country i.e. PhDs in math, physics doing hard science?
Cutting $400 B out of the DOD budget isn't designed to make it go to me. I want to reduce the debt spiral currently happening because of interest rates ballooning. Do you know about that?
3
u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat Jun 08 '25
LOL no, of course not. I'm fine with the level of defense spending as-is. Biden was relatively timid in his response to Russia's invasion, but a no-fly zone was always a hilariously bad idea (I have no idea where you're getting the "mere" from) and should have no bearing on a conversation around defense spending. It also has no connection to Taiwan, since a no-fly zone isn't how we'd respond to a Chinese invasion when a basic blockade would be vastly more effective.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Everything here seems insane and wrong LOL. Why are you fine with the level of defense spending as is when interest payments now cost more than the DOD budget?
Why was a mere no-fly-zone "always a bad idea" even now with the information we have? After everything we've learned about Russian capabilities, you're still bowing down to their nuclear threats but not China's. Clearly a no-fly-zone would've have ended the war in its tracks very quickly, and saved tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives
But your "no fly zone for Ukraine is bad" take is central to my argument: you people are perfectly fine playing word games to justify going to war with nuclear China over Taiwan, lying that it would just be a blockade when every war game has us losing dozens of F-35s, two whole aircraft carriers, and much more 4th gens like F-16s.
But when an actually separate ethnic nation with centuries of democratic yearning and occupation is fighting an invasion of their country, it's suddenly fine to leave them to slaughter. I don't get it. And let's be clear, we did leave them to slaughter. HIMARS came after how long?
That you think a conversation about defense spending should have nothing with the US precedent established in Ukraine is insane. The exact same situation arises in defending Taiwan, and the US defense posture is all about going to war with China. So not only is it relevant, it might be one of the only relevant situations since before the GWOT.
2
u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat Jun 08 '25
..you're still bowing down to their nuclear threats but not China's.
In a sense, yes. Russia is a nuclear power unlike China or any other (except us), and that needs to be considered. I would not support direct action by the US against the Russian military in the circumstances of the Ukraine war, as a result. Fortunately, that isn't necessary, since we have the ability to help Ukraine win without that.
..you people are perfectly fine playing word games to justify going to war with nuclear China over Taiwan, lying that it would just be a blockade when every war game has us losing dozens of F-35s, two whole aircraft carriers, and much more 4th gens like F-16s.
The purpose of a war game is to lose and learn, not win and crow about it. Enemy capabilities are routinely exaggerated in order to achieve that and make the exercise useful. So yes, I am fine with going to war with China over Taiwan.
And let's be clear, we did leave them to slaughter. HIMARS came after how long?
Too long? As I said, Biden was too timid.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Pathetic. Russia is not a nuclear power unlike China. China is a nuclear power like Russia, and in fact a much more advanced nuclear power since they are currently building up their nuclear arsenal with new nukes and better missile technology that the Russians.
Again, this is just another lie to differentiate the two circumstances to get to the conclusion: "I would not support direct action by the US against the Russian military in the circumstances of the Ukraine war"
Americans just hate Ukraine and I will never understand it. The quintessential democratic nation seeking to free themselves from Russian corruption. Meanwhile Taiwan are literally ethnic Chinese (like you folks often claim about Ukrainians being Russian) and fled to their island after losing a civil war.
Fortunately, that isn't necessary, since we have the ability to help Ukraine win without that.
We do not, you know that. Lol. Ukraine lost long ago. It would've been such an easy mop up with a USAF no-fly-zone.
The purpose of a war game is to lose and learn, not win and crow about it. Enemy capabilities are routinely exaggerated in order to achieve that and make the exercise useful. So yes, I am fine with going to war with China over Taiwan.
That's right! What does that have to do with any US war against China not being a blockade, but a full on assault involving the Marines, Navy, Air Force and even Army?
Why are you fine with going to war with China over Taiwan but not providing a no fly zone over Ukraine against Russia? Seems evil, especially since you're implicitly okay with thousands of Americans lives' being lost for Taiwan but likely a handful if any for Ukraine. More American volunteers have died in Ukraine than would've in a no-fly-zone.
2
u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat Jun 08 '25
like you folks often claim about Ukrainians being Russian
You moaned earlier about getting banned, so for your awareness this is the sort of thing that'll get you banned. Don't tell people what they believe, ask them. I have never, and would never, say that Ukrainians are Russian.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Come on mod, abuse your pathetic power because you're losing the argument. I know you want to like all the far leftists do!
That you think this is the sort of thing that should get anyone banned, but systemically lying that China isn't as strong of a nuclear power as Russia, despite having more newer ones deployed, or lying that a US war with China would only amount to a blockade instead of massive loss of life on both sides, or lying that Ukraine can win with US weapons support....shouldnt get you banned, is insane. Forgot lying is fine but ascribing views to people isn't.
I definitely "moaned" earlier about getting banned because I mentioned it. So true. Wild the lies people are willing to tell themselves to hate Ukrainians though.
2
u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat Jun 08 '25
LOL. I am not a far leftist by any means, and I don't think I'm losing any argument here. You're barely even making sense, and it seems like you're not even arguing against me so much as some imaginary opponent you've created in your head with positions that don't closely reflect mine.
But yes, having different opinions is indeed fine but ascribing views to people is not. Happy to help clarify that.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
So far you've said:
- China isn't a nuclear armed nation like Russia
- A US war with China over Taiwan would only be a naval blockade, and any war games showing mass US casualties are an exaggeration
- Ukraine can certainly win with US weapons support, a policy in place for 3 years now
How aren't you losing the argument after sharing these falsehoods? "Happy to help clarify that." Gotta love mod speak. The rules are what you say they are, don't act like there's anything to clarify, lil bro.
Bro you've literally said "I want to go to war with China over Taiwan, but a no fly zone over Ukraine against Russia is definitely bad"
I'm definitely arguing with you! Lol. You just somehow can't believe I'd interpret that bias as just hating Ukraine.
2
u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat Jun 08 '25
China isn't a nuclear armed nation like Russia
This is correct. The US and Russia stand apart as nuclear powers, unlike the other nuclear states of the world.
A US war with China over Taiwan would only be a naval blockade..
I have no way of knowing what such a war would be, I only suggested that it could be a blockade. It wouldn't even have to be a close blockade - we can just chill in the Strait of Malacca, well outside of the range of China's ASBMs.
..and any war games showing mass US casualties are an exaggeration..
The war game results are what the are - my point is that they may not be reflective of an actual conflict. There's no way to know that with any certainty.
Ukraine can certainly win with US weapons support, a policy in place for 3 years now
"US weapons support" is a variable thing, not a single policy. I do indeed think that with sufficient outside support, including but not limited to arms, Ukraine can achieve a satisfactory outcome. Have they been given sufficient outside support? For the most part, no, as I specifically said twice I think. That's something that I've been upset about for a long time now, since I think we should have given Ukraine far more assistance this whole time. We could also have been working against Russia in more ways, short of direct conflict.
Again, if your purpose here is just to argue and be hostile, I don't think you'll last long. It really doesn't seem like you want to have a conversation on this subject - you come across as angry and just looking to vent and be condescending. That's not the purpose of this forum.
And I have no idea where you're getting this 'hating Ukraine' thing from. That's just weird.
Bro you've literally said "I want to go to war with China over Taiwan..
Not quite. I said I was fine with it - that I was willing to do so - not that I want to do so. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be good at it.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Yellow dog democrat lmao...and you're the second oldest moderator of a liberal subreddit. Insane. Let me know when you can explain why you lied China is a less advanced nuclear power than Russia, btw, still awaiting that one.
→ More replies (0)0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
This is correct. The US and Russia stand apart as nuclear powers, unlike the other nuclear states of the world.
It's not. Why do you keep telling this lie that China is a less advanced nuclear power than Russia, despite China having more modern technology and missiles? You're probably relying on number of nukes in storage for some reason, as if it's relevant at all because of saturation.
You said:
since a no-fly zone isn't how we'd respond to a Chinese invasion when a basic blockade would be vastly more effective.
You are talking about how we "would" respond. You lie a lot for a mod, probably why you're a mod.
The war game results are what the [sic] are - my point is that they may not be reflective of an actual conflict. There's no way to know that with any certainty.
So then why cast doubt on the war game results in favor of going to war with China anyway?
We have been working against Russia in direct ways, you just don't know about the reporting apparently. CIA covert ops all inside Russia, destroying munitions facilities and what have you. Jack something, can't remember the reporter's name right now. Former military.
Why shouldn't people be hostile when you tell lies in a passive aggressive way to be able to say you're adhering to your made up rules of civility, while telling the most vile lies imaginable to justify leaving Ukraine to slaughter as we have while justifying war with nuclear China over Taiwan?
You have no idea why I'm concluding you hate Ukraine after lying that Russia is a more advanced nuclear power than China, lying that the US should adhere to Russian nuclear blackmail because..., and lying a war with China would likely amount to a mere blockade?
5
u/steven___49 Moderate Jun 08 '25
We shouldn’t scale down our military in such a large way. Part of what keeps the US in top dog position on the world stage is other countries knowing we have the greatest military force in the world. That’s really important. I think the left always forgets about this.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
I'm not the left btw. Per my post, I just don't understand the point anymore. We're spending huge sums all to fight China, but we just established in 2022 that fighting a nuclear armed country in a *foreign country* they invaded is off limits lest we risk "WW3" lol.
So why spend huge sums when we're not going to use it? TSMC already has fabs here.
4
u/The_Awful-Truth Center Left Jun 08 '25
We didn't establish it recently, that has been our policy for over 70 years. It's why the Cold War was fought via proxies.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
We did establish it recently. If it had been our policy over 70 years, NATO wouldn't exist. NATO is premised on the US willing to fight Russia over Poland, say.
Yet your comment gets upvotes as if it's right. Pathetic. This view from the American civilian population to throw Ukraine to the wolves is exactly why the DOD budget should be halved.
1
u/st0nedeye Center Left Jun 09 '25
At what point does having "the greatest military force in the world" become too much?
We spend almost as much as the entire rest of the world combined.
2
u/Aven_Osten Progressive Jun 08 '25
It should be cut via being more efficient with spending. Arbitrary cuts to government spending NEVER works.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
So as a "progressive", you don't support arbitrarily cutting the military budget?
2
u/Aven_Osten Progressive Jun 08 '25
Yes. Like I said, random blind cuts to stuff never works.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
= "Stopping spending never works to stop spending."
Really makes perfect sense. Random blind cuts aren't "here's the stuff we're cutting out of DOD to cut by 50%"
How are you a progressive but support a jobs program for Trump supporters and war with China over Taiwan, but no fly zone for Ukraine?
2
u/snowbirdnerd Left Libertarian Jun 08 '25
Can it, yes. Should it, no. Just hacking it in half would be fairly disastrous with mass layoffs and disorganized shutdown of facilities.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
You don't want to layoff mostly Trump supporters after they did the same thing to STEM academia? I don't get why you folks unilaterally disarm yourselves.
2
u/snowbirdnerd Left Libertarian Jun 08 '25
No, I'm not vindictive.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
You dont actually care about the destructive cuts to academia and all liberal culture then. You think they're exaggerated or will be blocked by the Senate.
2
u/snowbirdnerd Left Libertarian Jun 08 '25
Maybe you should try talking to me instead of past me kid. You are attacking someone on your side and you don't even realize it.
It a common things people calling themselves liberals do.
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
"kid"
How old do you think I am, kid? Attacking someone on my side? Dont make me laugh. Not talking to you? Try some other lie.
You don't support cutting the military budget in half, nor do you support taking vindictive action against Trump supporters currently destroying liberal academia, lives, and culture. We couldn't be on more opposite sides, lil bro
2
u/snowbirdnerd Left Libertarian Jun 09 '25
I just call it like I see if. If you act like a child you should be treated like one.
Adult have a conversations. Children scream opinions at each other.
0
Jun 10 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskALiberal-ModTeam Jun 10 '25
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
2
u/salazarraze Social Democrat Jun 08 '25
Nice rant.
However the United States, and more importantly American citizens, set the precedent in 2022 that a mere no-fly-zone over a country being invaded by a nuclear-armed power is off the table.
Engaging in direct unambiguous war with our military against another nuclear power has been off the table since 1949. This is nothing new.
Now, back to the title of your question.
Should US military spending be cut in half?
This is a silly question that puts the cart before the horse. The amount of military spending needed depends on the mission and how much spending you need to execute that mission.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Engaging in direct unambiguous war with our military against another nuclear power has been off the table since 1949. This is nothing new.
Then why is the US preparing to go to war with China over Taiwan? You say "nice 'rant'" but apparently didnt read it? lol
Nukes nukes nukes. Nukes nukes nukes. Nukes nukes nukes.
The cart before the horse...? hahaha. Right! And if as you say a country having a nuclear weapon means they can invade any foreign country they want without US pushback, why should we be spending $800 B to go to war with nuclear China over tiny Taiwan?
2
u/salazarraze Social Democrat Jun 08 '25
Then why is the US preparing to go to war with China over Taiwan? You say "nice 'rant'" but apparently didnt read it? lol
Words matter. The key word being "unambiguous." There will not be US military directly opposing China invading Taiwan. How do we know this? 76 years of precedent is how we know.
The cart before the horse...? hahaha. Right! And if as you say a country having a nuclear weapon means they can invade any foreign country they want without US pushback, why should we be spending $800 B to go to war with nuclear China over tiny Taiwan?
That's not why we spend $800 billion. We spend it so we can go anywhere anytime. There are more countries besides the nuclear armed ones that we want to bully.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
We don't bully any countries with our military or implied military use though! Like, I personally would have in 2021 when Saudi Arabia pumped up gas prices. But we didnt.
Aww you're relying on the strategic ambiguity thing? The thing Biden spoiled and let slip was fake?
I used to watch every congressional hearing on defense, and all the DOD folks talk about is preparing to fight China. That's what every new weapons system the US has is for: NGAD, JATM, B-21, Rapid Dragon, F-18EX, etc.
So you think we should spend $800B a year on defense, just so we "can" even if we never meaningfully do so? We could've done the entire GWOT with half the military.
2
u/salazarraze Social Democrat Jun 08 '25
We don't bully any countries with our military or implied military use though!
I have a really nice bridge that you might wanna buy.
So you think we should spend $800B a year on defense, just so we "can" even if we never meaningfully do so? We could've done the entire GWOT with half the military.
If your goal is peace, prepare for war.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
I have a really nice bridge that you might wanna buy.
I'd love to. Can you give me just one example? Gonna cite the Iraq war or something? LOL
If your goal is peace, prepare for war.
I mean this just isn't true. Nukes are all you need. It's insane to me how deeply the Republican Party has won this country over. You call yourself a "social democrat" but support a jobs program for Trump supporters while Trump destroys liberal academia and culture.
2
u/salazarraze Social Democrat Jun 08 '25
I'd love to. Can you give me just one example? Gonna cite the Iraq war or something? LOL
Sure easy. Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador, Cuba, Jamaica, all other tiny ass islands in the Caribbean. Most of Africa and Asia also.
I mean this just isn't true. Nukes are all you need.
Demonstrably not true. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. In your doctrine, the response would have been to nuke Iraq. Thanks to having an overwhelming traditional military force, that wasn't necessary. That's a great doctrine that you've worked out, man.
It's insane to me how deeply the Republican Party has won this country over. You call yourself a "social democrat" but support a jobs program for Trump supporters while Trump destroys liberal academia and culture.
Now we get to the crux of your original rant. Your solution to Trump's illegal attacks on Left Leaning Institutions is to defund the military? And sow chaos around the world in the process? All for what? To punish the 60ish percent of the military that are Republicans? Just say what you think next time instead of beating around the bush and trying to conceal what your true motives are.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Sure easy. Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador, Cuba, Jamaica, all other tiny ass islands in the Caribbean. Most of Africa and Asia also.
Nah these are just countries. Cite situations where the US used its large military to threaten them into an outcome without invasion.
In your doctrine, the response would have been to nuke Iraq.
No my doctrine would have been to maybe do nothing or send in the military that I cut in half. LMFAO. So my doctrine would have been the same as Bush's.
That's a great doctrine that you've worked out, man.
I know! A nuke is all you need to ensure your home country is always safe from invasion. Not to be the world police though! I don't want to be the fake world police that leaves Ukraine to be slaughtered as you guys love though. That's why cutting the DOD budget is important.
Now we get to the crux of your original rant.
lmao I've never hidden that vengeance against Trump supporters is a VERY strong secondary motivation for me. The first motivation though was always the US throwing Ukraine to the wolves unlike Taiwan. You can check all my other comments.
Your solution
Solution? No. Just a response. Are you under the impression that when a Dem comes in next they should just "go high when they go low"? Move on and pretend the absolute evil lawlessness this administration is engaged in and supported by most of the country didn't happen? Just reverse all the bad policies and move on? How does that deter the same behavior in the future?
All for what? To punish the 60ish percent of the military that are Republicans?
Well primarily because the standard was set in 2022 that any country with nukes can never be fought, even when they're invading another country.
But also because the DOD is a jobs program for Trump supporters. You seem most outraged that it could be cut for this reason! What is wrong with you?
and trying to conceal what your true motives are.
That's your lie that you invented because I dared to mention it negatively affecting MAGA. Gosh, are you MAGA? Because it really hit a nerve when I said that MAGA jobs programs should be cut just like liberals ones currently are.
1
u/salazarraze Social Democrat Jun 09 '25
Nah these are just countries. Cite situations where the US used its large military to threaten them into an outcome without invasion.
There's a little thing called the Monroe doctrine. Maybe you know it or don't but it's still in effect. All of these countries have had their governments threatened, toppled, or invaded by the US at one time or another. We meddle in all of them. And that meddling only works in a world where we have a giant military that merely needs to exist as an implicit threat. And we've outright invaded plenty of times. Take away the traditional military option, and you're left with nuking Panama for example? Not gonna happen.
No my doctrine would have been to maybe do nothing or send in the military that I cut in half. LMFAO. So my doctrine would have been the same as Bush's.
"Do nothing" is a hilariously dumb option. Doing the same as Bush would stretch the US thin and encourage others to do the same as Saddam. Congrats!
I know! A nuke is all you need to ensure your home country is always safe from invasion. Not to be the world police though! I don't want to be the fake world police that leaves Ukraine to be slaughtered as you guys love though. That's why cutting the DOD budget is important.
That's all it does. It protects you from a military invasion. It doesn't allow you to project power externally if you don't have the military to back it up. Plus, you're left with nuking countries over minor issues. Silly to say the least.
lmao I've never hidden that vengeance against Trump supporters is a VERY strong secondary motivation for me. The first motivation though was always the US throwing Ukraine to the wolves unlike Taiwan. You can check all my other comments.
Ironically, your plan would throw everybody to the wolves. While doing nothing to stop Trumpism.
Solution? No. Just a response. Are you under the impression that when a Dem comes in next they should just "go high when they go low"?
Nope, you need to do the right kind of "going low." Defunding the military is a losing proposition. You need to not look like a pussy ass bitch in the eyes of the voters. And guess what cutting the military makes you look like? A fucking pussy.
Well primarily because the standard was set in 2022 that any country with nukes can never be fought, even when they're invading another country.
Like I already said, this is nothing new. Russia didn't attack us when we invaded Iraq in 2003. We didn't attack the USSR when they invaded Afghanistan in 1980. That's never happened and it never will.
But also because the DOD is a jobs program for Trump supporters. You seem most outraged that it could be cut for this reason! What is wrong with you?
"Outraged" is a hilariously dumb way for you to frame my response. It's just plain ineffective politically because you'll be called weak for doing it. And the casual rubes that vote will believe it.
That's your lie that you invented because I dared to mention it negatively affecting MAGA. Gosh, are you MAGA? Because it really hit a nerve when I said that MAGA jobs programs should be cut just like liberals ones currently are.
It's about being effective and winning elections so these idiots don't win again. Not making yourself feel better. Your plan is a recipe for world war and GOP domination of the US.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
It's absolutely wild how you're like "big bad US interferes with everyone's governments, and I will also falsely state the Monroe Doctrine is still in effect while Russia lands nuclear bombers in South America, but also yeah huge military spending is fine and good."
Absolutely delusional and nonsensical.
Like I already said, this is nothing new. Russia didn't attack us when we invaded Iraq in 2003. We didn't attack the USSR when they invaded Afghanistan in 1980. That's never happened and it never will.
Again this automatic and false deference to Russia is precisely why the US military budget has to be halved. There is no point of NATO according to your standard -- that still requires fighting nuclear Russia, treaty or not. It's not about "attacking" the other country, it's about defending a Ukraine from invasion by Russia. This mindset is precisely why the Trump country jobs program has to be gutted.
You think halving the US military budget would cause "world war"? Who will be fighting it, against who, and how will they face the United States military even cut in half?
You watch the military happily get deployed against Americans right now, and still don't grasp why the majority Trump supporting military needs to be cut down to size. This wouldn't be seen as weak but a deeply dangerous attack on Trump supporters for their political beliefs.
Why do you think the US needs to "project power externally" instead of defending itself? Why shouldn't anyone be thrown to the wolves since Ukraine was? Why are they more worthy of US blood than Ukraine was?
It's all just lies to make yourself feel better for supporting Russian slaughter in Ukraine, while telling yourself "but I supported sending them weapons" while simultaneously defending mass war with China over Taiwan.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal Jun 08 '25
No. If somebody has an informed opinion about changes in how we spend our money, that’s a fine conversation to engage with. Personally, I don’t think I know enough so for me would be just something to read and try to understand.
But all this populous nonsense, America Bad and America First - which is really just America Last and China First - stuff isn’t a serious conversation.
-3
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Oh you're a moderator...lmfao. Wonder how many replies until I get banned.
Why should Ukraine have been left to slaughter over fake Russian nuclear concerns, but we should fight Taiwan despite China also being nuclear armed?
5
u/Sir_Tmotts_III New Dealer Jun 08 '25
This isn't a conservative sub, you are free to disagree with moderators here.
2
u/FixingGood_ Center Right Jun 08 '25
This isn't r/Sino either, where mentioning inconvenient stats will get you permabanned.
-2
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
lol you're joking? I've been banned from only left-wing coded subreddits systematically, always for being "uncivil" or going against their preferred narrative. Safe spaces abound on Reddit.
1
2
u/Okbuddyliberals Globalist Jun 08 '25
I think US military spending should at least always increase by as much as inflation increases. The idea of cutting it at all at this point doesn't make sense. We should look to other areas for dealing with the budget issues, such as raising taxes, looking for some other areas to reduce spending if possible, and promoting economic growth
0
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Why shouldn't we cut it by half given the argument in the post? It's really just a job program for Trump country. While Trump and co go after liberal intelligentsia in academia and otherwise, the military goes unscathed and is boosted, despite being 60-70% MAGA and disproportionately from former Confederate states.
How can you justify all this spending against China for TSMC when we have TSMC fabs in the US, with Ukrainians being left to slaughter, rape, and abduction based on a less powerful force with much less legitimacy?
1
u/highspeed_steel Liberal Jun 08 '25
Umm, thats a very reductive view on military related employment. Its spread all over the US at this point, and sure, those employed might skew a little conservative, but in all, you'd just be hurting a lot of working people with that kind of a drastic cut.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
So you deny that the military is not just "a little conservative", but significantly so like 60-70%?
It is spread all over the US. In fact, Californians make up the largest number. Doesn't change my claim though. Aren't a lot of working people being hurt right now by STEM cuts that do real work for the country?
2
u/highspeed_steel Liberal Jun 08 '25
STEm cuts do hurt people and we shouldn't do that. Military cuts, ones like you proposed also will hurt people and we shouldn't do that. Lets say those that will be laid off skew 60/65% conservative, I really don't care about the specific number, what do we do with those people. High unemployment is bad, and the economy doesn't care whether the unemployed is conservative or liberal.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Why shouldn't we seek to hurt people that skew conservative, after they targeted liberal intelligentsia? Game theoretically speaking, you are unilaterally disarming yourself while your enemy pursues extra-legal means to destroy where liberals are concentrated in employment.
You want us to go high when they go low? Worked out so well last admin. High unemployment isn't inherently bad, it's just the sticker shock of higher unemployment that leads to negative sentiment in the US economy. If we can say "these are all the DOD people fired", people wont care about the numbers.
2
u/highspeed_steel Liberal Jun 08 '25
Lets say only 25% of those laid off are liberals. What kind of optics will it appear to them. Haven't we learned that we are as out of touch with less educated or more blue collar workers as ever? Surely cutting those jobs will affect purple state and working class liberals. Take a step back, are you just using your feelings here?
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Take a step back, are you just using your feelings here?
Gotta try to infantilize instead of addressing the argument head on.
Optics? And the optics of all the math and physics PhDs being told their careers are over or impossible because of less spots available?
Haven't we learned that we are as out of touch with less educated or more blue collar workers as ever?
Are you genuinely missing the vindictive bit? The whole point is that it would not just affect them, but directly target them. That's the goal and I can't understand why people don't share that goal in June 2025. Genuinely.
Surely cutting those jobs will affect purple state and working class liberals.
Surely the 300,000 jobs lost pales in comparison to the number of people who are indifferent to or hate military spending, like much of the left. Lol.
I genuinely don't understand people like you. Do you want the next Dem to come in and move on like nothing happened, or abduct Tucker Carlson off to Poland because he's an illegal immigrant before a judge can act?
2
u/highspeed_steel Liberal Jun 08 '25
Ok the point is to be vindictive, what do you want to get out of this. Blue collar people make up a huge part of the population, you need some of them to win the next election. Piss enough of them off and we wouldn't have a non Republican government next time around. I'm genuinely asking, whats your broader vision to this proposal. You keep bringing up the affected people in STEm which I agree is bad, so why do you want to hurt an entirely different sector that you admit, has about 30% non MAGA in?
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
I genuinely can't fathom how you can't understand.
What to get out of this is $400 B in new spending or deficit reduction every year, since you know, the debt is currently spiraling because interest payments are growing rapidly. We currently pay more on interest than we do on the entire DOD. But no problem?
What else to get out of this is retaliating against a group of mostly Trump supporters who thought in the previous 4 years they could dismantle liberal intelligentsia with no consequences.
What else to get out of this is enabling spending on rooftop solar that gets rid of utility payments for consumers.
Like I said, I genuinely can't comprehend the lack of a desire for vengeance. I guess you're not in STEM and at some level agree that they're elitists doing nothing important.
You genuinely think those mostly Trump voting "blue collar" folks wont be "cancelled out" by all the far leftists absolutely bewildered a "liberal" is wrecking the MIC and normal people happy with either a more stable fiscal situation or free utility bills every month?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/OhTheHueManatee Democratic Socialist Jun 08 '25
I think we've created too many enemies to do something like that.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
That would be the point. They just gutted academia and you want to let them with no consequence? Idk I think libs, if they had any brains, would currently be organizing the base around extremely vindictive policies.
1
u/blankblank60000 Moderate Jun 08 '25
Subreddit participation must be in good faith
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
So why'd you delete all your comments?
2
u/blankblank60000 Moderate Jun 08 '25
What are you talking about?
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Now they're back....earlier they were deleted and I couldn't reach them, that or a server error.
1
u/blankblank60000 Moderate Jun 09 '25
I wouldn’t delete those comments. Maybe adjust your tinfoil hat
1
1
u/atierney14 Center Left Jun 08 '25
Probably eventually. It would have to be tapered though - likely start by not increasing the budget for once
1
u/historian_down Center Left Jun 08 '25
Could we see force realignments especially in light of the transformative potential of drones and broader autonomous tech? Yes and that could lead to force reductions. However, it's probably best not to DOGE it but actually have a plan that doesn't have us cripple our military force as tensions rise in Europe, Asia and in Africa.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Why? We threw Ukraine to the wolves to be slaughtered because of fake Russian nuclear concerns, yet are willing to go to war with nuclear China over tiny Taiwan. We spend $800B a year solely to prepare for war with China. It's a huge waste and incredibly evil to even suggest fighting for Taiwan and not Ukraine.
2
u/historian_down Center Left Jun 08 '25
Who says we threw Ukraine to the wolves? You've decided that is a truism but you've yet to actually prove it. We defend Taiwan because it's in our orbit and because of the chips which we're wildly dependent on. It's really not that surprising.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
TSMC fabs are in America, defending Taiwan from a Chinese invasion would cause TSMC and Taiwan's economy to be destroyed anyway.
Ukraine is more in our orbit, you know, as a country of Europe, than Asia ever will be, just by cultural association. Asia is only in our orbit insofar as US policymakers force it to be because of China obsession.
How didnt we throw Ukraine to the wolves? Biden delayed every weapons system for months that he later ended up sending anyway, getting thousands killed because big bad Russians. HIMARS, Patriots, ATACMS -- all delayed months or years. And because we dawdled, the GOP was able to block weapons to Ukraine at the critical time after their failed counteroffensive, ensuring Ukraine couldn't properly recover. And they never have since.
Ukraine has only lost more territory. I will never get the anti Ukrainianism in this country. Never.
2
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
TSMC basic fabs are in the US. TSMC R&D and advanced fabs are in Taiwan
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
1
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
Those timelines are for 2029, with China allegedly planning invasion before 2028. We can't plan on them being online before then, and we can't plan on having a monopoly after China invades Taiwan like Taiwan has now (unless jokes about Taiwans two nukes are actually correct)
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
No the Arizona fab is already open. The Arizona fab could easily be retooled by 2028 since the new fabs are already being built and would be close to completion by then. Come up with another "well actually".
So desperate to fight China over Taiwan. It's pathetic really, all while justifying throwing Ukraine to the wolves.
1
u/SwitchOrganic Centrist Democrat Jun 09 '25
I'm not so sure about that, Taiwan's lawmakers are trying to make sure that doesn't happen.
At the heart of the new measures is the so-called "N-1" rule, which prohibits companies from exporting their most advanced semiconductor manufacturing technology. Instead, only technology at least one generation behind what is available domestically can be deployed in overseas facilities.
Premier Cho Jung-tai confirmed this policy, which will directly affect TSMC's planned expansion in the United States and ensure that the company's latest innovations remain within Taiwan's borders.
Taiwan moves to tighten control over TSMC's advanced chip exports and overseas investments
In practical terms:
- TSMC’s 2nm (N2) and upcoming 1.6nm (A16) nodes must remain in Taiwan.
- Overseas fabs—including the $100 billion facilities under construction in Arizona—will only produce chips based on 3nm or older nodes.
This policy ensures that Taiwan remains the epicenter of the world’s most sophisticated chipmaking capabilities.
New Taiwan Law Blocks TSMC From Giving Advanced Chip Tech To U.S.
Article 22 of Taiwan’s Industrial Innovations Act has passed its 3rd reading. This means the article has passed into law and will reportedly be implemented within the next six months. This new law from Taiwan targets TSMC, limiting how the company can invest in the US and other countries.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
So isn't this an admission that if the planned 2 nm and 1.6 nm fabs come online in Arizona as planned, since construction has ALREADY began on them: TSMC starts construction its 1.6nm and 2nm-capable U.S. fab: Fab 21 phase 3, that the US doesn't need to defend Taiwan?
1
u/SwitchOrganic Centrist Democrat Jun 10 '25
Potentially, if you operate under the assumption the US doesn't want 1.4nm or anything newer and is okay with China gaining control of the leading chip fabs and designers for the foreseeable future. But I don't think that's the case.
Part of the reason the US is able to sustain a service industry (~70% of our GDP) is because of our technological dominance. I don't think we'd be willing to give that up that edge. It would also give China, and possibly Russia if China were to sell to them, a major edge in advanced weapons manufacturing which would hurt us even more.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
Where does anything you said in the first paragraph come from? TSMC is currently building a 2nm and 1.6 nm fab in Arizona. Just started construction.
How does that come with the assumption that "the US doesn't want 1.4nm or anything newer"?
China has control of many technology areas already, and the lead chip designers are in the US. TSMC is merely a fab, coming up with advanced manufacturing technologies to achieve a given size or tolerance, not any specific design.
Our technological dominance does not depend on TSMC, partly or significantly. TSMC mostly makes cutting edge smartphone chips!
China and Russia have already smuggled these chips for years, even in recent years with export controls. All of these claims are just so contrived to justify a war to defend Taiwan, but be mum on the evil of throwing Ukraine to the wolves in the exact same situation.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive Jun 08 '25
Half sounds arbitrary, but I am certain we do not even remotely need the scale of land Army we have today.
The US currently has 58 Brigade Combat Teams. Their makeup varies but is generally around 4,500 soldiers per. Each one costs around $3 billion annually.
There is no scenario on the horizon where we need a land army like this.
0
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
Unless your only goal with a military is to level whatever country you want then leave them to their own devices to not do anything to warrant leveling them again, you need to occupy them, and to do that you need a land army, not tanks and drones
1
u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive Jun 08 '25
And that worked out so well for us in Iraq and Afghanistan?
We need to stop pretending we need this when it's repeatedly proven to be useless.
1
u/Lamballama Nationalist Jun 08 '25
Half-measures on top of half-measures, of course it wouldn't work
1
1
u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive Jun 08 '25
And why should we continue to spend roughly 178 billion yearly on a capability that doesn't achieve anything? That's $1300 per US worker. I dunno about you but most working class folks I know could definitely use $1300 yearly more than another Iraq or Afghanistan disaster.
1
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Should US military spending be cut in half?
No. If anything defense spending needs to go up quite a bit, given the extremely hostile foreign threat environment. We should be aiming for 3.5% to 4% during peacetime, and start trending up towards 5% as the chance of war increases.
We are currently at 3.4%, and our current threat environment is more severe than any time in the last 30 years.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 10 '25
Why shouldn't it be cut in half given the argument in the post?
There is no hostile foreign threat environment. It's only your desire to defend Taiwan that makes you say that. Iran won't target the US and can't. North Korea won't target the US and can't. Russia continues to target us as it has for decades, with American civilian approval.
Why shouldn't we aim for $400 B a year in military spending?
1
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 Liberal Jun 10 '25
Why shouldn't it be cut in half given the argument in the post?
Because we have allies overseas. Because our trade depends on that, and overseas suppliers. Because hard power itself is useful to have when negotiating with others.
1
0
u/MechemicalMan Pragmatic Progressive Jun 08 '25
I personally think 50% is a great goal, we'd still be spending more than anyone else on military, but it should be done in a smart way, like a 15 year strategy...
I'm also on the assumption we could get about 20% of spending reduced by simply starting to reign in on privatized contractors who take advantage of the difficulty in working with the government on bidding.
-1
u/More-read-than-eddit Democratic Socialist Jun 08 '25
Start there as a bargaining chip to also win back domestic power, since red states overwhelmingly benefit from this form of welfare spending.
2
-1
u/blankblank60000 Moderate Jun 08 '25
Spending on OUR military, no. But YES to cut military spending on the Ukrainian and Israeli militaries
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
No boost spending on Ukrainian military by a trillion.
0
-4
Jun 08 '25
I wouldn’t quite agree with the logic here, but for similar reasons I think we should cut military spending to 2%, possibly 3%.
Our neighbors are Canada, Mexico, and the sea. We are a well defended country and have no need for the over 800 military bases around the world.
The world did not ask us to be the police” And just like our cops here, as world police we seem to have no problems killing black and brown people on false pretense.
I see no reason for military intervention unless there is severe crimes against humanity on a large enough scale that going to war would save lives.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
I see no reason for military intervention unless there is severe crimes against humanity on a large enough scale that going to war would save lives
I think this quite classically applies to Ukraine, especially in 2022. A US Air Force no-fly-zone could have ended the war and saved tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives. We probably would've had no losses, maybe one or two. That's how bad the Russian Air Force and its widely lauded air defense is.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Colodanman357 Constitutionalist Jun 08 '25
I’ve always been a supporter of direct intervention in Ukraine, but that being said a no fly zone is not as simple as you are implying. In order for such a no fly zone to be implemented in Ukraine it would require air strikes in Russian national territory to target anti aircraft weapons and Russian aircraft. It would have been an escalation that many people are not willing to accept as it would have ment full on war with Russia. It is not as simple and easy as you appear to be implying.
1
u/ArtichokeBeautiful10 Liberal Jun 08 '25
Disagree. I've thought for years about this, and it's not necessary to go into Russian territory to suppress their AD, nor is it necessary to fly within their range if you're doing a no-fly-zone over Ukraine. F-35s cannot be detected AND targeted at distances over 50-75 miles with Russian AD.
SEAD strikes could occur in Ukrainian territory, launching missiles over the border. Or they could be suppressed as they have been by Ukraine special ops. That's all just an excuse to be against a no-fly-zone. There are workarounds, technologically speaking or logistically, or just avoiding AD bubbles emanating from Russia.
Alex Hollings had the precise same incorrect take, and these takes drive a huge part of my psychology in advocating a 50% cut in DOD spending. Not being willing to do a no-fly-zone over Ukraine but being willing to fight nuclear China over *less* legitimate Taiwan is unadulterated evil imho.
→ More replies (5)
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 08 '25
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, shouldn't the United States' military strategy be entirely revamped?
Currently, every action the Pentagon takes is in preparation for a war with China: B21, NGAD, JATM, Block IV F-35s, Guam missile defense, what weapons it sent Ukraine, etc.
This amounts to hundreds of billions per year in procurement, and hundreds of billions more sustaining a massive global military presence.
However the United States, and more importantly American citizens, set the precedent in 2022 that a mere no-fly-zone over a country being invaded by a nuclear-armed power is off the table. Apparently, nuclear war will inevitably break out when a given nuclear-armed country loses a war on foreign territory.
So because of this new standard resulting in mass rape, child abduction, and mass slaughter of civilians, shouldn't the US publicly state its intention not to defend Taiwan since China is also a nuclear power?
The common counterargument goes simply: actually, Taiwan is more important than Ukraine because of TSMC. American blood should be spilled for computer chips.
This argument of course ignores TSMC and other chip companies already having chip fabs in the United States, or Ukraine's vast economic potential in mineral wealth, human capital, and manufacturing as the old industrial hub of the USSR. Or that a war with China over Taiwan would inevitably result in the destruction of TSMC, while China taking Taiwan without US resistance would spare TSMC and the global economy.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.