Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Missile/Drone Intercept by U.S. Navy Destroyer in Red Sea Shows Why We Need a Bigger Navy

The USS Carney, a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer in the northern Red Sea, on Thursday shot down multiple missiles and drones launched by Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen that the Pentagon said were potentially headed toward targets in Israel.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/us-navy-destroyer-red-sea-185700181.html

---

How long before state sponsored terrorists launch missiles or drones directly at the United States by concealing them on ships, possibly even hijacking ships on the high seas and using them as platforms to launch such attacks?

It's clear that a bigger navy is needed to intercept such attacks anywhere near our coastlines as well as to be continuously on station near hostile nations, such as Iran and North Korea.

We also need our national missile defense system to encompass protecting our southern border should terrorists smuggle such weapon platforms into Mexico.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration reached out to Hollywood screen writers to envision scenarios in which terrorist attacks might occur against the United States because of the alleged lack of imagination in our national security aparatus. 🤔

Let's not wait for another terrorist attack on our soil before we engage in prepardedness to help thwart such attacks.

We need a trillion dollar national defense budget... NOW!

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

America has almost half the world's military spending. This is not realistic, so make it three quarters.

Maybe don't arm Saudi Arabia to attack Yemen. That might also help with security.

HoraceGreenley · 61-69, M

@Burnley123 The optimal spending for a country in peacetime is 5% of GDP. By that reconing, the US should spend over $1 Trillion annually on its military.

That formula was figured out by one of your countrymen at Yale university. Not exactly a hot bed of conservative thought.

Vin53 · M

@HoraceGreenley

The optimal spending for a country in peacetime is 5% of GDP. By that reconing, the US should spend over $1 Trillion annually on its military.

Thats the dumbest take I've seen in quite a while. Congratulations.

HoraceGreenley · 61-69, M

@Vin53
On what basis do you make that assertion?

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

America has almost half the world's military spending.

It's time to bury that red herring.

You and others who make that specious argument are not accounting for purchasing power disparities.

How about comparing how much it costs to pay and equip a solider in the United States Army to one in the Army of the People's Republic of China? Or for the draftees Vladimir Putin is sending to Ukraine as cannon fodder?

Here's one article that helps explain the differences.

From rifle to raincoat, helmet to haversack, the Chinese soldier’s kit list costs just under 9,400 Chinese yuan ($1,523), or roughly the value of two entry-level iPhone 6s in China, according to Southern Weekly, a Guangzhou-based newspaper...

According to an Associated Press report in 2007, which cited Pentagon officials, the average U.S. soldier costs about $17,500 to equip.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-CJB-25186

---

And here's a more ominous one which states that real military spending by the Chinese, when you take into account purchasing power, is nearly as much as that spent by the United States.

Which makes far more sense when you start considering that they have the world's largest military force with nearly two million personnel, as well as the world's largest navy in terms of ships.

China’s Defense Budget Is Much Bigger Than It Looks
The actual number could be more than double the current Western estimate.

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan recently revealed that U.S. government estimates put the Chinese annual defense budget at around $700 billion. That is far higher than previous estimates and almost on par with the United States’ 2023 defense budget of just over $800 billion.

A price gap also applies to other domestic inputs, from many weapons and supplies to services and facilities. Comparing each country’s defense inputs suggests that the purchasing power of China’s overall defense budget is 60 percent higher than the dollar equivalent suggests. Even when using the old, low estimate of $290 billion, that would give the Chinese military nearly $469 billion in actual spending power—about 59 percent of the 2021 U.S. defense budget.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/19/china-defense-budget-military-weapons-purchasing-power/

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@HoraceGreenley Any statistics that you can easily Google

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero All that to prove that the US still spends more than China on military. A country with five times your population and an economy the same size.

If you look at the stats for military spending, you'll find that America also spends more than all of the other first world countries combined ( they have similar costs and purchasing power). All of those countries are also your allies.

The idea that America needs to spend more for 'defense' purposes is ridiculous. How much of a security threat are China and Mexico?

It's a vast about of spending to have an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

If you look at the stats for military spending, you'll find that America also spends more than all of the other first world countries combined ( they have similar costs and purchasing power). All of those countries are also your allies.

We don't spend money for national defense against our allies.

We spend it in case we need to take military action against our foes: China, Iran, North Korea and Russia. All of which do NOT have similar purchasing powers.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero I was pointing out that most of the next tier of military spenders are your allies.

The top twelve world military spenders incudes America (with half the spending), China, Russia and nine American allies.

Imo America should not be spending so much on the military and not have universal healthcare.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

And what I am pointing out is that you are not taking into account the greater purchasing powers of our principle adversaries: China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.

It's like saying New York, Honolulu and San Francisco have the best houses because they are more expensive there. Nooooo! It just COSTS more money to buy them there.

Imo America should not be spending so much on the military and not have universal healthcare

We can do BOTH. And with the several hundred billion dollars we could save with a single payer health insurance system, we could put that towards increasing our national defense budget to one trillion dollars per year. It's going to go up to a trillion in several years anyway, so why not get ahead of the game?

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero I haven't argued against purchasing power. I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't understand how things are more expensive in the first world!

I myself live in a first world country, albeit a crappy one. I'm glad you are in favour of single payer. This surprises me because you seem against candidates who are.

You see those guys as enemies. Ok, why? None of them is close to the US geographically and none pose any kind of direct threat to us people.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

I myself live in a first world country, albeit a crappy one. I'm glad you are in favour of single payer. This surprises me because you seem against candidates who are.

Not against a candidate, say like Bernie Sandersm because he favors single-payer. I supported both Hillary and Biden against him because of other issues, especially foreign policy and national defense matters. And also because Sanders wouldn't have beaten Trump.

You see those guys as enemies. Ok, why? None of them is close to the US geographically and none pose any kind of direct threat to us people.

Germany isn't close to the U.S. geographically, is it now? 🤔

And being from the U.K., you should have an appreciation for the freedom of the seas.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero Hawks always use the WW2 analogy for everything.

Every conflict evvvvvor works with that analogy.

Tbh I don't think that Hitler was have conquered Britain even without us intervention.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

I don't think that Hitler was have conquered Britain even without us intervention.

Uh huh. That's why the U.K. government shipped all its gold and treasury holdings to Montreal for safe keeping.

You know as well as I that what happened at Dunkirk was a miracle.

And without the U.S. Navy's help, Britain could not have staved off Admiral Karl Doenitz's U-boat fleet.

You couldn't even find the battleship Bismarck without our help after you lost it.

😉

Hawks always use the WW2 analogy for everything.

Not for everything. But when something works, one would be foolish not to use it. After all, you brought up geography. 😂

(and I could have just as well referred to World War ONE. Not as far as invasion was concerned, but certainly starvation.)

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero I said conquered Britain. 🤣

After the Luftwaffe lost in British skies, it was never really on the cards. The.reason why they had so many u boats was their navy wasn't big enough.

Invading an over sea is hard. Impossible without navel superiority. Even Napoleon couldn't do that, despite dominating Europe more than anyone ever.

WW2 doesn't work as an analogy for Israel Palestine. Unless the Jews are Nazis. Which they are not

It's just an ultra selective and American centric reading of history. It's good for banter but it's not serious analysis.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

I said conquered Britain.

And what do you think a surrender would have looked like?

Just imagine if Lord Halifax got the PM's job instead of Churchill after Chamberlain stepped down in May 1940.

And the Battle of Britain wasn't decided until September 1940, well after Dunkirk. Had the Luftwaffe kept going after RAF airfields instead of restorting to bombing London after the RAF had mistakenly dropped a few bombs on Berlin, who knows what may have happened. Winning the battle in the skies was NOT pre-ordained.

Defeating the Spanish Armada was also not a given. Sometimes pure luck is involved.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero We are no longer talking about whether Germany could have conquered Britain in WW2? None of your points seem relevent to that. 😆

Churchill wasn't even that good militarily. As an orator, he was world class. Two of his big military ideas were Gallipoli and Italy. The first was a disaster, the second an unproductive waste of resources. Under any British leadership these islands wouldn't have been conquered because A) The Germans didn't have the naval (or air) domination and B) didn't see it as a priority. Point A is enough to debunk your argument but I'm happy to do a double tap.

You know a few facts. Putting them together is your issue. Not sure what the Spanish Armada has to do with any of this. If you are trying to reference my comment on Napoleon, you surely mean the the Battle of Trafalgar. Pure luck? It was a pretty one sided massacre of the combined second and third best naval powers of the era.

The Germans big mistake in the battle of Britain was to stop targeting airfields at a crucial point. That they did that wasn't cos murica

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

We are no longer talking about whether Germany could have conquered Britain in WW2?

Halifax. Halifax. Halifax. Why have you ignored him?

If the UK goes begging hat in hand for a separate peace with Hitler, France still falls. But the Med becomes an Italian lake with the withdrawl of the Royal Navy from Gibraltar.

President Roosevelt, who was doing all he could to hold off isolationists in America by helping Britain with the Lend Lease Act, tosses in the towel. He turns his attention to continue to build up the U.S. Navy for an eventual war with Japan. Europe is done, as far as the U.S. is concerned.

In 1941, Germany with little to fear in the west sends extra forces east and the Nazis take Moscow and Leningrad. Stalin flees east of the Urals, negotiating a separate peace, and the Soviets are knocked out of the war. Germany now has all the oil it needs.

Since Hitler has no intention of keeping treaties, the one with Britain is useless. Either an invasion takes place by 1943 or Britain is forced to make more concessions.

Does the U.S. still pursue the Manhattan Project? Perhaps, but maybe not with as great urgency. The Germans win the abomb race. And, humanity and freedom, as we know it today, does not exist.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero Florida woman gives a lecture on British political history and confuses Trafalgar with The Spanish Armada. 😆

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

Huh? Why would I confuse the Battle of Trafalgar with the defeat of the Spanish Armada?

I mentioned LUCK, remember? Meaning the WEATHER,

What Nelson did at Trafalgar was the result of SKILL.

And I am NOT from FLORIDA. Why on Earth would you think that?!

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero I thought you confused the two in your comment.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Burnley123

😂 Why would you think that?

Isn't it a little too early across the Pond to be nipping at the bottle? 😉

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@beckyromero Nah, I'm drinking coffee. And eating toast. Not tea and crumpets.