/sci/ - Science & Math

A lot of the money spent on defense is just for upkeep of the current forces.

>>2687933

Then reduce the current forces.

>>2687932
There is a trickle down effect from military spending anyway. Think about people who join the army to get an education they could not afford otherwise.
Or people who join the army to get a job in the first place.
Or the military ordering high tech development from civilian companies... which often leads to new jobs, PhD scholarships, joint university research projects....

'We'? My country is a peaceful place with only 10 000 troops. If by 'we' you mean US, it's probably because a large portion of US decision makers are very nationalist and are ready to gain influence at any opportunity given.

Military industrial complex

Besides that, reason to have strong military:
1. Lots of enemies of FREEDUM
jk
Real 1. Lots of people hate the US because of it's past international involvement
2. The World Wars started with aggressors (see: Germans) although, mfw Iraq becomes the new Poland.


In the end, though, if people wanted to attack someone for their land, they could always go after China or the rest of the middle east. UN world police might stop that in general though.

3. Russia, START treaty, needs to be expanded

>>2687938
Then unemployment skyrockets and people turn to crime to pay their way

>>2687940
"trickle down economics" was proven to be bullshit in the Reagan era.

america is actually profiting from waging war.

The country is basically a corporation. Although they don't like to invest in long term planning they do anyways and put in as little effort into it to maximize profits.


America.Inc

Do some research before you say herp derp how are they making money off war when all our taxes are going towards it.

>>2687940
>There is a trickle down effect from military spending anyway
>trickle down effect
The scary thing is you probably typed this with a straight face...

>>2687952

The companies are profiting from the war, not America.

Companies are making money off the tax payer.

America is always recruiting.

>>2687952

I am not denying that there is an industry making money with this. Of course there are lobbyists but I was talking about the general US population. It's their taxes after all.

>>2687952
>america is actually profiting from waging war.

>America borrows more money from China, etc. to wage the war instead of implementing war taxes or making US citizens shoulder the cost of the wars
>America currently facing an enormous budget crisis
What planet are you on exactly?

>>2687940
>There is a trickle down effect from military spending anyway.

broken glass fallacy, google it.

>>2687960
When companies profit off the war so does America.

GDP goes up, even though the distribution of wealth isn't fair standards of living for those well off go up

You can't study if you're killed by Terrorists, can you?

The defense budget is necessary for America's existence, simply put

>>2687957

Not the poster, but he didn't mean trickle down economics.

He meant like an indirect redistrubution of wealth.

This was the platform of Obama's stimulus.

And why the country did so well during the World Wars.

Tax the rich, distribute the money to government employees.

Basically, 1 person having $100 million dollars, they're not going to spend $1 million at the grocery store. But if you take them 1%, and give 100 people $1000 for work, they're all more collectively likely to spend it and thus stimulate the market.

Newt Gingrich called it liberal math. Newt is an idiot.

>>2687976

>>2687960
No, America. There are a lot of civilians (like maine shipyard industry) whos jobs are dependent on the government for their business. The military industrial complex is a lot more than hulliburton.

>>2687976
Oh lord
he was brain washed by the republicans

trillions of dollars is a bit too much to be fighting barely trained terrorist in the desert

Ok what about a country like Sweden.

Sweden has not been destroyed by the forces of evil yet?

How could they prevent that although their army is not nearly as large?

Same goes for germany, france, italy etc.

I don't get it how people are thinking...

Nukes, we should keep them, they have utility. Mutually assured destruction isn't illogical, if you start invading shit we nuke the shit out of you and your officers consider you a liability and oust you, it worked for Japan, it's no different from being a square and telling the teacher about a bully then jumping him later when he's alone, breaking his teeth with a piece of pipe and scaring the shit out of him, I'm sure everyone did this at least once, the only way to deal with sociopathic dictators is to play on their level. Of course international politics is not like a school playground, only the behaviour of dictators.

Aircraft carriers are just logistical tools at this point, any reasonable developed countries that can field modern diesel electric silent attack subs can sink carrier strike groups by the dozen, naval exercises have shown this, South African and Chinese subs can pop up in the middle of fleets without being detected. We should have 4 max.

We should then invest heavily in infantry training, weapons, armor, it's boots on the ground that get shit down in 4th dimensional warfare, not cruise missiles. We should train specialized "gendarmes" who are trained in urban warfare and policing duties in dangerous areas, particularly avoiding collateral damage, training local police and playing a role in capturing hearts and minds, we could involve the UN in the training for extra diplomatic bonus points.

>>2687998
unlike USA, sweden isn't on a mission to save the world...

>>2687983
The Military Industrial Complex is a terrible means of innovation for the private sector. Maybe you should have listened to Eisenhower's speech?

>>2687991

Why do you try to twist everything into a political discussion?
I've been watching you, stop that.

This is not a matter of right of left.

It's a matter of living free, or letting the jihadis take away our freedoms.

Just to let you know, the defense budget is only 5% of the GDP

>>2688002
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh wow.
0/10

>>2687998
Europe has relatively smaller armies because right now everyone is fine with the status quo in Europe and no one dares to open Pandoras box by significantly increasing defense budget.

>>2688002
Correct
Sweden isn't on a mission to spread it's hegemony.


Gotta love modern imperialism.

>>2687938
that's not a simple solution, if you fire a military you actually retire him early

>>2688039
Correction******

herpy derp derp derp

>>2688001

What you are saying makes sense, but international politics doesn't.

>Nukes, we should keep them

Nukes degrade with time. You should continually replace them with newer, faster, more accurate and more powerful nukes.

>it's no different from being a square and telling the teacher about a bully then jumping him later when he's alone

No, because there is no "teacher" on the international level. The UN is not an authority, it is merely a collection of nations making unimportant gestures.

>Aircraft carriers are just logistical tools at this point, any reasonable developed countries that can field modern diesel electric silent attack subs can sink carrier strike groups by the dozen, naval exercises have shown this, South African and Chinese subs can pop up in the middle of fleets without being detected. We should have 4 max.

Nobody seriously thinks about deploying aircraft carriers in a war where they could be sunk. America has them mostly for air support against backward nations.

A war between 2 nuclear powers would make aircraft carriers insignificant.

>We should then invest heavily in infantry training, weapons, armor, it's boots on the ground that get shit down in 4th dimensional warfare, not cruise missiles.

Infantry can only go so far. There are definite limits to human endurance and unless you fit them with exoskeletons you can't really improve infantry by much.

From now on, conventional warfare is going to be UAVs.

>We should train specialized "gendarmes" who are trained in urban warfare and policing duties in dangerous areas, particularly avoiding collateral damage, training local police and playing a role in capturing hearts and minds

Yeah NATO troops are already doing that. Better still, train the Afghans to take care of themselves.

>>2688050
you forgot "its"

>>2688055
oh lord tl;dr

maybe you should split them up into smaller post next time so people would actually read.

>>2687998
The only threat to Sweden comes from Russia, and between Russia and Sweden is Finland with a reserve closer to a million men.

Not that Russia couldn't rape them in a war, but it's never going to do that because the benefits wouldn't outweigh the resistance.

>>2688076

Not at the moment, because Russia has barely any people left after the breakup of the USSR and its military is pretty shit compared to the Soviet era.

US subsidises 60% of NATO budget allowing Europe to not pay as much on its on defense.

US has mutual defense treaties with half the world.

Armies are required to maintain beneficial trade agreements.


>The companies are profiting from the war, not America. Companies are making money off the tax payer.

The military industrial complex is a socialist instituation, and one of the few examples of where socialism works fairly well. It makes very little money and many of the CEOs are government appointed. But that is only right, the military is always the concern of the state, and one of the few things it can run properly. It also is designed to invest in dubious but possibly useful technology for application in the one area were a sight advantage can win the day, war. In business a slight advantage may not be worth investing toward, but the goverment can afford to do so because it is after global influence not a profit margin.

>>2688111

That is correct.

Agriculture is also a concern of the state and should also be nationalised.

>>2687940
Replace "Military" with "NASA", and you're headed in the right direction.

>>2688129

Not sure what you are trying to imply

>>2688039
I fucking wish it was imperialism, then it would actually be profitable.

>>2688140

This is profitable in the long-run.

>>2688125
Well agriculture does not need to be nationalised just correctly subsidized and taxed so that the major agribusineses are capitalist subsidiaries of the goverment. Allowing control of food production but the efficiency of profit centric agriculture. You don't want to nationalize it all because alot of small holders on the east coast are not big enough for that to work, so we just subsidize them.

>>2688160

Might it be better to buy up all the land and do everything more efficiently large-scale?

>>2688039
>>2688002
>>2687998
You know if you read back to the 1600's and 1700's, everyone in Europe was afraid of the expansionist swedes.

They had the most aggressive military next to Napoleon's France at this time, but never get's talked about because of how they are today.

America will be where France and Sweden are now, just give us a hundred years.

>>2688194

You are clearly deluded.

EVERY nation in Europe has been expansionist at one time or another. The 100 year war, the Napoleonic wars, Prussian expansionism, Russian expansionism, etc etc.

>>2688178
You can't, they individual parsels are too small and separated by marginal forest land. You can't move you equipment easily. That's why they are never bought up in the first place. The geomorphology of the land just doesn't make it work. Most of them just raise livestock or crops that are profitable because they are consumed in the same tricounty area they are grow and don't have extra shipping costs. Of course that means you only have an income for the few months in late summer and fall when the crops come in or in late fall during slaughter.

>>2688221
Everybody is expansionistic, everybody. The USA, Russia, China, and maybe Canada(if they could get off their asses and start fucking to increase their population) will always look big on the map because that is their home range. Those big countries are never going to split up and become remnants like Sweden because everyone in those big areas sees themselves as part of those empires first and anything else second.

>>2688221
This is true but Sweden was a special case. Everyone of there neighbors talked about how they were afraid of Sweden and Swedes were one of the first to truly become nationalistic like what happened in France.

You know since nationalism hadn't really spread yet because the French revolution hadn't happened.

They had an x factor that everyone was afraid of.

Go read your history, European leaders were afraid of swedes and it was all put in writing.

My point is that every country has tendencies of becoming war like then becoming isolationist. Even in America we have periods of vast isolationism and we are now in period of being militaristic.
>>2688248
I wouldn't be so sure of yourself, history isn't on your side my friend. Even recent history.

>mfw over 2/3rds of the budget is tied up in non-discretionary spending like medicare and social security, and you will never accomlish anything permanent unless you cut into that a bit

>>2688331
social security has a surplus doesn't it?

>>2688310

Do you even know why the USSR fell apart?

>>2688383
USSR couldn't make it's promises fiscally to it's constituents so smaller factions within USSR split from the Union.

read this info sheet.

>>2688403
The global drug market is only 4 billion more than the bribes received by Russian officials. Coincidence?

>>2688402

Bullshit.

Everyone knows the USSR fell apart because the rebellions were no longer crushed with great force.

>>2688402
But the Russian portion didn't break up. The USSR was by my assessment just a new Russian Empire with a novel new social structure. Just because a bunch of commies overthrew the tsar instead of a new Muscovy prince overthrowing him and being called the new tsar didn't make it any less Russia 2 electric boogaloo.

The USSR broke up because it's satelites didn't think of themselves a Soviets/Russians first, they thought of themselves as Poles/Slavs/whatever under a nominally communist government controlled by the Soviet Union. Similarly the British empire fell apart because the British ran out of ability to enforce it and the people did not think of themselves a Britons but as subjects of the Crown.


Russia will not just disintegrate anymore than China, the US, or France, or Britian; even though they were originally welded together out of seperate states they have become so entrenched as what they are that they will never just disperse.

As long as their is a unified group identification that everybody agrees upon an empire can remain whole at its core even as its power waxes and wanes. That is the whole idea behind the modern nation/state.

>>2688511
Actually there is a good number of potential secessionist in Russia, but you are of course right on the principle that they want to break up because they feel they don't belong together.

>>2688511

You mean like Japan and South Korea?

>>2688540
But how big are they?

I don't think all of siberia, or all of the old Muscovy empire want to secede. It's just small slavic groups on the eastern frontier so far as I know.

>>2688643

Next thing you know, Texas and California secedes.


But seriously, nations AS WELL AS empires are only held together by a charismatic leader and a motivated population.

It amazes me just how good the quality of life the Americans could have, so much better than the rest of the world if the money way spent elsewhere. But as a citizen of Europe, I don't give a fuck and am glad that at least one Western nation has huge military capability

>>2688718

Not sure if trolling.

America has a huge ass trade deficit with China. It has all the consumer goods it wants, and more.

There is no reason not to other than pure corrupt profit interests by the corporations involved in the military-industrial complex.

Not science.

/new/ is

-----> >>>/b/

that way

>>2688810
right we should be on the politics board... oh wait

Economist here.

In Politics, you are evaluated with the GDP of your country during your rule.

GDP keeps track of how much you spend, not how you spend it.

Therefore, to escape recession the U.S. goes trolololo with taxpayer's money...

So that they can say : "z0mg 0.4 % growth guise, USA fuck yea number 1 lolol".

They could implement French healthcare, which is one of the best and costs much less than the U.S. healthcare, but it would deflate GDP.

you don't need the defense forces, you need the attack forces.
The US has lots of carriers and can strike anywhere on the globe.
It's what keeps you at the top. Otherwise the US sucks.
Nuclear weapons don't invade countries and don't pose a real menace because of MAD and common sense (unless they're invading your homeland).

>>2688986

Talking out of your ass. Look up military projection kiddo.

>>2688986

>can strike anywhere

So can nukes. Your point is?

>>2688986
>Nuclear weapons don't invade countries

Retard.

Lrn2Hiroshima&Nagasaki

wrong
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
says,

budgets
medicare- 807 billion dollars
social security- 708 billion
defense/war- 695 billion

cut everyone's budget by 50 percent.

now we are puting 1.1 trillion dollars away to pay for the debt every year.

within 20 years our debt issues will be solved.
Sucks bitch,but there's no choice!

Also replace the IRS with either the fair tax,and flat tax

cut taxes,disembowel the bureaucracy for business....

Jack up the taxes on imports,and tax heavily on those who choose to out source labor,rather than use domestic.

Rebuild our Nuke deterrence,bring our men home,use them to build the Berlin wall of Mexico and Canada.

Revamp our immigration,so those who are great contribution to society such as scientists,researchers,and entrepreneurs can come here and "set up base",rather than a bunch of "inept fools"...

and our problems are all solved

Also,truck one of those nukes to Detroit,so we can build the new silicon Vally of science,and technology and get rid of the current dump of "crack-hoods"

mkay?

>>2689458

Or, you could increase military spending, invade China and cancel your debt.

Problem solved.

>>2689466

It will then truely be US vs the world.

>>2689476
And guess what. USA will still win

>>2689466
That's just plain stupid,or else we would of long ago...

Oh don't forget to burn down the federal reserve,and reinstate the gold standard to help put value on our money once more.

Put a balance budget in our constitution,gun point if needed,and broad cast those who refuse to vote for such an amendment so the voters can tar and feather them.

Oh how about converting some our super carriers into humanitarian aid vessels.

Reducing our military power is a bad idea. What the average person believes to be the purpose of the military-industrial complex is often completely wrong, and also invalidates the theory that American dominance is soon to recede. The US subsidizes roughly 60% of NATO's defense budget, as well as selling most of Europe, South America and South Asia's weapons, tanks and fighter jets. After World War II we essentially shouldered the roll of caretaker of the western world (which is obviously a pain in the ass, see Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.) for undisputed economic dominance. Sure, we owe China lots of money. But we also have the military and industrial capacity of the 2/3 of the world by the ball sack. Our military strength wins wars before they're even started for this reason. China will never declare war on us for a few reasons:

1. They are far more likely to attack Japan or one of the Korea's first.
2. They know they would lose, which essentially means that we would have to help "reconstruct" China, aka we never have to pay back what we owe them.
3. If we lose, we still wont be able to pay them, or at least, not for decades.

>>2689481

Yep, they would win the war, but the aftermath would be so bad that suicide of all citizens is inevitable.

Oh we can't forget about invading North Korea

>>2687932
Cut defense budget and use money for education, science, healthcare and social services.

Seriously, why do we need an army? They are just totally useless

ITT: naive people

>>2689516
ITT: people indoctrinated to an absurd militaristic "logic"

All you need is nuclear submarines and CIA to sabotage all missile shield projects.

>>2689525
agreed,
also naive for thinking people who run the american army will give up on all the moneyz they get from arranging arms deals

>borrow money from other countries
>other countries can't do shit to get it back because you spend it all on military
>pretty much as good as earning it
america is running the most profitable racket in history

Countries are just a stage on the large scale of things

Eventually, we will HAVE to become one planet united. If we ever wish to expand our race towards the stars we need to be united.

First, families
Then Tribes
Then Towns
Then City States
Then Countries
Then complete unity

Think about it. Throughout the entire course of humanity, we have slowly become more and more united. Right now we are in the country stage.

But humanity living on multiple worlds depends on unity. We cannot expand from a planet divided into countries.

You know this is true. And you know this is why we will not travel to the stars until long after we are able.

Because complete unity would be extremely hard to achieve. And no, I'm not some HURRF DURF NEW WORLD ORDER person. And this will certainly not happen in our lifetimes.

But it is necessary for many things.

>>2689586
AND TO ADD

IT WILL NOT BE CARRIED OUT BY THE FREE MASONS OR ILLUMINATI OR WHATEVER STUPID GROUPS PEOPLE TARGET.

RATHER GLOBAL REALIZATION OF THE NECESSITY OF SUCH A THING, OR A WAR

AT THIS POINT THE LATTER SEEMS MORE LIKELY.

>>2689586
It'll probably become East and West Hemisphere before unity, if such a thing happens.

>All other countries, including China, have not nearly as large an army.

>>2689602
Complete unity will come only from anarchy
We can't be united if some peoples walk on other ones

Real reason why we're fucking around in Iraq and Afghanistan and shaking our dicks at Iran:

Oil scarcity speculation. In other words, fear. The market is afraid that oil will be a scarce resource every time something happens to destabilize the middle east political landscape, so everyone's buying. The market pressures now demand a higher price for this scarcer resource. American gasoline refineries make money, American gasoline retailers make money, crazy pro-US sultans make money (insert picture of George Bush sucking some guy in a hooded robes' dick), all the rich assholes in the world make ridiculous money.

And the sad thing is they manipulate public discourse so badly that there are people who agree with this.

Anyway, back on topic, perhaps I was foolish to say that the Ammilcomplex has only one use. It has many. Job #1 is American dominance, which I can respect. If it weren't the Americans trying this shit it would be Russia or China, I see us as the least of necessary evils. To this end, military technology is a very reasonable budget item. The best weapons win every damn time when it comes down to it. Nobody in charge cares about the people of Vietnam or Iraq. They want to test out their new toys of death, as well as turn a tidy profit out of it.

>>2689636
Anarchy hasn't worked since the 19th century.

>>2689667
It works very well since centuries

I liked the idea in invisible war where JC and some greys sent trillions of nanites out into the world to 'integrate' into the earth's population and effect some kind of forced shared empathy between every living human being.

The more mutual our conditions become, the more united we'll be.

>>2689636
That wouldn't work. It would have to be some sort of government, most likely democracy in its near pure form.

Direct or almost completely direct civilian participation in the government, a president/prime minister and a board that would put Acts out that the civilians would directly vote on, no Congress or Parliament. The board would be chosen by the leader, to make sure a sort of chemistry is formed and people are not bickering. Civilian groups would be the source of opposition to proposed Acts and Laws. A global court system would have to be imposed, this could be similar to what we have in America today. For space travel, the industry would have to be government controlled to prevent competition between companies to reach other planets. We must be unified in our attempt to colonize space.

The economy would be Capitalist, as a perfect communistic economy and country is virtually impossible to make.

Regional government would need to be extinguished, and only have elected officials that would carry out and enforce the laws of the Earth. There would also be regional police forces.

This is my idea for what must be done to create a unified world.

>>2689701
Well since this thread is dead I am going to post my idea in /int/

It may serve good trolling purposes for those who think it's a new world order piece of crap and could start a conversation.

>>2688877
>right we should be on the politics board... oh wait
>>>/newpol/

Even if you don't want to use the politics board, which is what /newpol/ is, doesn't mean that it belongs on /sci/. Your logic is like saying anything that doesn't have its own board can be discussed on /sci/, which is stupid.

>>2689701
I spent 7 years in an anarchist communist village
We were a community of 200 people at the foundation, to 1500 at the end
What I witnessed during those seven years is:
1. We had neither selfish nor thief, everything was shared from the beginning to the end
2. The only violence that occurred were caused by love AND alcohol
3. People who joined us were so glad they did not want to leave to the other side
4. Children were very delighted, to 4 years most were literate and now (the oldests are 6 years old) they can debate intelligently with adults
5. As soon as the government heard about us they sent the cops, then the army, they used batons and nasolacrimal, we used love and passive resistance, we held 5 months

Since this adventure I spoke with many people who lived something equivalent and their conclusions are the same

>china
>not a big army

oh boy

>>2689769
commune != anarchy
you were retarded luddites with no ambitions, that's why it worked
all the rapes probably went unreported

Pilot here, and I'm lucky to have survived cuts in Britain. Don't tell me that we need more.

>>2689787
We were living in anarchy, we had no rules and no leader
Also, there was no rape and, after few weeks peoples had no shame about sex so if anyone would have been raped he would have talked about it

>>2689769
Cool story bro

>>2689794
So where did you get your food from

>>2689790
Yes, you are useless and obsolete.

>>2689794

What if a person decided to establish property rights and decided to only work for their self or work for an exchange of capital?

Would you use force against them if they did not comply to the anarchocommunist/syndicalist lifestyle?

>>2689806
plantations, livestock and barter with travelers

>>2689769
Pics or it didn't happen. I could just as easily said I spent 7 years in an an underwater objectivist utopia.

>>2689814
No but no one did since they have seen the difference between the life they had outside and what they had with our system
But if someone had wanted to do that we would let him, everyone was free to do what he wanted

>>2689586
There was our region of the galaxy; there was our world. I had found the entry for earth: HUMANITY: THIRD FROM THE SUN. They had heard our television broadcasts and thought them an application for cosmic citizenship. Our technology had been growing enormously (they got that right). Two hundred nation states, about six global powers, the potential to become one planet.

>>2689826
believe what you want it doesn't matter

Every country should maintain a strictly defensive military. This is not to say the republican version of 'defensive', which apparently looks something like "defend by offense." This is a reference to 'Sheer Self-Defense.'

This Sheer Self-Defense would include all of the technology of our current offensive military, it would merely be relegated to defense of self. This would require a fraction of our current Defense budget, but a huge amount less I imagine.

Why? Well, it's simple! The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or my point could be rephrased with an allegory.

Who is a villain of these two?

1. The man who builds guns, makes them better, and then uses them, but only to defend himself in case anyone tries to take his life.

2. The man who builds guns, makes them better, and then uses them, but for whatever reason he likes, including walking into other people's houses, shooting them, then taking all of their things. Or maybe sometimes he takes to targeting those who LOOK threatening and then shooting them eighteen times in the chest so they won't become a threat.

Why is it any different for a nation? Offensive war is murder, plain and simple.

>>2689565

You don't know shit about economy kid.

>>2689820
No electricity or mobile broadband?

>>2689843
both are villains, the good man doesn't build weapons, doesn't make them better and doesn't use them

>>2689855

But what happens when #2 comes in the door with that improved gun and all he has is his bare hands? In your world, a good man is a dead man?

Surely there is nothing corrupt in true self defense.

I spent 7 years in a minarchist capitalist city (Hong Kong)
We were a community of 7,000,000
What I witnessed during those seven years is:
1.Minimal government involvement between people who wished to freely trade amongst each other
2.Creation of wealth and a higher standard of living for productive members of society
3.People who joined us were so glad they did not want to leave to the other side
4.Children were very smart due to a competitive schooling system which favored successful teacher and did away with poor ones
5.Due to a minimal amount of government the use of force against citizens was non existent

Since this adventure I spoke with many people who lived something equivalent and their conclusions are the same

>>2689847
We had electricity, we had some batteries used for light and hydraulic pumps and travelers reloaded them regularly with their cars
No mobile broadband, it was at a time or even outside the cell phones were rare and we were far away from big cities

>>2689867
Is #2 a problem or is #2 a consequence of the problem?

>>2689877

>As soon as the government heard about us they sent the cops, then the army, they used batons and nasolacrimal, we used love and passive resistance, we held 5 months

this is interesting to me, what country were you in?

I know in the US there are many socialist/communist townships that freely exist. Were you in Bulgaria or some shit?

>>2689892
France

>>2689891

#2 will exist, always, period. You cannot make everyone follow the rules. Game Theory says that there are always two groups of people which can be summarized as The Rule Followers and The Cheaters. In the game of human morality, there will ALWAYS be cheaters, because it pays to cheat. You cannot just pretend you can fix this by getting rid of weapons in your little province of the world, cheaters do not care about the laws you pass in your province and will acquire the weapons all the same. Even if you made Earth-wide laws to get rid of weapons, there would be a huge underground market for creating them, improving, and trading them. But the only difference would be that only those who are willing to cheat the system will have them.

>>2689914
>because it pays to
>there would be a huge underground market

That's exactly the problem I'm talking about

>mfw i'm a fascist

>>2689914
What would having weapons buy to the cheaters? You don't need a gun to stop a gunman.

>>2689919

The problem you're talking about is the fact that cheaters exist?

The reason why we can't cut our military spending in half is BECAUSE it is already double of what many other nations combined spend on theirs. Our military might allows us to provide those opportunities for people to go to a good school, and watch TV, and then protest the system that supports them.

>>2689949

The military in my nation (The US) has never helped me. Why? Because I won't sign a contract to murder others at their behest.

There are much better ways to spend money if the outcome you want is to "opportunities for people to go to a good school, and watch TV, and then protest the system that supports them."

>>2689936
money, markets, ownership, capitalism

As a wise man said, a long time ago: "Renounce your scheming and abandon gain, and thieves and robbers will disappear"

>>2687932

Its because of aliens.
No, seriously.

why does US care all of a sudden?

Republicans don't deserve to live.

>>2689966

They will never disappear. But I do agree with you that in a post-resource economy thievery would be almost unheard of.

However, we're not in a post-resource economy and there is no possibility of being in one until we are able to replicate everything we need and the fuel for those replicators is so abundant that no one has to fight over it. We live in the current world with current problems.

Every single republican deserves to die. They are a blight, and if there ever comes a civil war, I will gladly put a bullet between the eyes of each and every one of them.

fuck you commie scum. defense budget is 4% of the GDP. it is not a magical bottle of whiskey, that never runs dry.

>>2690011
Kill yourself. War should never be an industry.

Cut your balls off right now, lest you tragically breed.

Rest of the world here.
U.S.A. is a bully, and not even a good one at that.
At least the Romans were badass.
You are just pussies (90% of your veterans crap their pants when they open a bottle of wine), fat, illiterate, and beta as fuck.

Sincerely,
Planet Earth.

If everyone gets their taxes cut to 5% there will be no way to pay for the budget and it will be forced to shrink. Problem solved.

Everyone deserve to live
That's why we should cut defense budget

>>2689769
>6 year old children can debate intelligently with adults

Says a lot about the brain capacity of adults in your commune

>>2690026
>90% of your veterans crap their pants when they open a bottle of wine
>lol

- Hegemony argument
- We're at war..ish(Zizek's blur between the war/peace)
- Ensuring World Stability, w.o U.S a lot of places would be fucked. Extend the Heg argument.
SubA.) China and Russia

>>2690041
I said "now", it means in the outside world

Why cut the defense budget to to spend it on something we will see no return on. From where i stand, American public schools are the worst institutions in 1st world nations. and government run programs are an infinite sink in this country. how about cut the budget on defense and all government, start paying down the debt so our children don't end up bankrupt.
P.S the hippie generation are to blame for the financial and political crisis this nation is in.

>>2690047

I'm not even American, and everytime I get access to your media, I'm spoonfed the "support our troops", "brave vietnam veterans" (against conscripts without shoes that couldn't read, did not have anything to eat, and were generally left with 3rd degree burns in 98% of their bodies).

Then they invent post traumatic syndromes or such bullshit (men have waged war for tens of thousands of years, somehow didn't exist before) to cover up the fact that they're pussies.

The inferiority complex gets so bad Hollywood releases 200 movies per year about a Marine that goes around exploding half the city the story is set in.

>>2690080

The best schools on Earth are public. There has been no substantial success in the private industry's handling of the education sector that would qualify it to replace the public sector.

>>2690080
>Why cut the defense budget to to spend it on something we will see no return on.
>education
>no return on

I don't like watching America fall into disrepair because of buttmunches like you.

why did america do so well during the world wars well imagine if your country competing with other countries and the your two most fierce competitors start a war with each other. Doing nothing absolutely nothing earns you higher rank with power. Now lets say you also profit from selling to both parties, you can make even more rank. Now lets say you join in as soon as the fight is almost over and the battle is still neck and neck you with almost no damage can deal a critical blow to either side that is willing to give you the best payout for doing so America landed in that position twice. WE ROLLED double YAHTZEE! Now war is not a good thing we just happened to be in a very good position twice and it would have been a bad position had we intervened. War is resource draining it is best to have none if you like having a rich nation, if how-ever you are being attacked it is best to find someone else to fight it for you.

>>2690080
>P.S the hippie generation are to blame for the financial and political crisis this nation is in.
Explain please

> Defense more important than Education.

EU here : if you're reasonably white, you're welcome as refugees.

>>2690100
>The best schools on Earth are public.

When you make up facts you reach your predetermined conclusions. [private schools are the best schools]

>>2690102
fuck you commie boy. only reason china does not roll over your australia is the power of usa

>>2690128

The most prestigious Schools always were public.

Paris Universitas for example.

>>2690133

The power of the USA ?
No, it's because they need to sell stuff to people.
Once they can sell their shit to Africa, you're gone.

If you don't die of clogged arteries beforehand.

private universities are best to learn at
public universities are best to research at

>>2690147

You got it backwards.
Nice try though.

>>2690147
>private universities
>you can practically buy your degree when you are rich enough

good education indeed. That W. Bush was really a smart guy.

>>2690128
Cambridge
Oxford
Imperial College
ETH Zurich
TU Delft
RWTH Aachen

You now realize that Bush has done Yale + Harvard, and Bill O'Reilly University of London + Harvard.

>>2690172
>RWTH Aachen

wat? I am from germany and why is the technische Hochschule in Aachen something special? I don't understand...

>>2687932

Military industrial complex, lobbyists, good old fashion corruption, and even older fashion nationalism.

>>2690181

>>2687932
Defense spending goes into military research.

The tech they make has far reaching civilian applications.

So its not all bad

>>2690172

OH SHIT A SCHOOL JERK OFF SESSION. Judge schools based off the school itself, not the location and not whether it's public or private. There are plenty of good public institutions and there are plenty of good private institutions. Now fuck off with your shitty argument about stupid bullshit.

>>2690203

huh? Jews? wat?

I thought the best German university is the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

This thread is 9/10

All you simple minded leftist idiots make me rage. At least you have your excuse now. You can excuse anything with having defense forces.

>>2690224

there are certain political advantages to having a big shiny military machine at your disposal, and even more political/monetary advantages in the upkeep of said machine. basically the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about has come to fruition. its not going away anytime soon.

Money? For science and education and social services? GET THAT COMMIESOCIALIST SHIT OUTTA HERE!

>>2690224

All your arguments have been that OMGUSANUMBER1!!!111 without any substantiation. It's a bit pathetic, really.

You could easily cut the defense budget by a third. Also let's go back to having a conscript army rather than this professional/mercenary army we have now.