My friend is writing a paper about why we should decrease military spending in the us. What are some actual articulate reasons otherwise?
>>29796258
Because the quality of life you enjoy is ensured by a powerful military keeping the sea lanes free.
>>29796258
Because there are better ways to redistribute wealth than to hand it out as military contracts.
>>29796319
>reading comprehension
he wants reasons AGAINST lowering the military budget.
>>29796258
Cutting loose tens of thousands of employees to a stagnant job market is a bad idea.
>>29796334
oh sorry.
Because I own Lockmart stocks.
>>29796343
Oh I'm sorry, I thought the US had a free market economy, not a centrally planned government-run economy.
I'm not gonna lie, I kinda have to agree with your friend.
>big military is big government and could enforce tyranny
>we don't have wars on our home turf
>other countries are too busy leeching shit off of us while we play global police
>the military industrial complex is running rampant, shit is ridiculously overpriced
>we're not fighting Russia or China so cutting edge shit is less useful, except for stuff that increases survivability against goatfuckers in mudhuts
>most guys that join the military are doing it for welfare
>most of them turn out to be massive entitled, arrogant faggots
>shits being run by politicians and their personal interests, rather than by people with brains
>the pussy ass liberals are trying to cripple the military every step of the way so it's not like we can even bomb the fucking sandniggers without them crying about the "casualties" and "innocent civilians"
>>29796369
There's a lull in the market, shit happens, wait a year and it'll probably be up again. This shit ain't fairyland it isn't 100% all day every day.
>>29796307
Very little of the military budget has anything to do with piracy, which is a very small problem anyway.
>>29796258
Because even if you reduced it to $0.00
We'd still be taking on new debt every single year because our entitlement programs are literally that massive.
So cutting defense is of little concern next to the budget cuts we should be making.
Meh not really cut spending but rectify spending habits
We're spending way too much money on ill managed projects that doesn't see the light of day
>>29796258
He best also be arguing for a proportional decrease in missions and massive change in strategy/use of the military.
>>29796689
>implying the military isn't a massive welfare program
>>29796689
>Because even if you reduced it to $0.00
>We'd still be taking on new debt every single year because our entitlement programs are literally that massive.
Actually cutting DoD spending to $0.00 would eliminate the budget deficit.
>>29796258
The military-industrial complex is one of the most extensive industries in the US, encompassing manufacturing, every conceivable field of science, technology, and engineering. Military projects drove the innovations on which the modern world was built and it is likely they will continue to do so.
>>29797029
Assuming the economy didn't crash and take the revenue with it, you mean.
>>29797083
>Military projects drove the innovations on which the modern world was built and it is likely they will continue to do so.
You are confusing cause and effect with correlation. Military projects drove innovations because they were massively funded, not because they were military.
>>29797108
Instead of moving the goalposts after you're exposed as ignorant, do a quick google search *before* you post.
>>29797083
>Military projects drove the innovations on which the modern world was built and it is likely they will continue to do so.
topkek. Let's look at some technologies that shaped today's world:
- All the critical technologies behind the PC were developed by private industry
- The public internet was privately developed, the DARPA network was worked on by academics who were only funded partially by the government. The public internet was developed with no military involvement.
- The smartphone: the government still uses blackberries. Enough said.
- Cloud computing: entirely a commercial initiative.
- Mobile telephony, wifi, etc - all privately developed
Pretty much the only military driven technological development that impacted today's world in any significant way is GPS, and even then the miniaturization of GPS receivers that made them commercially viable was private endeavor.
>>29797119
not him but tcp/ip was specifically for the military. would not have been don like that for civilian purposes. at the time and did result in why we are talking right now.
>>29797128
>>29797029
Not the guy you were talking to, but still dude..
Social security and Medicare alone make up 50% of the budget and another 10% make up "safety net" welfare.
The military budget is like 16% and actually serves a purpose.
>Because the quality of life you enjoy is ensured by a powerful military
How is the "freedom" in the U.S any different then from any other first world country?
What nation is coming to take our freedom?
The whole soldiers defending freedom is untrue, they are terrorists causing terror and destabilizing nations which pose no threat to the U.S.
>>29797298
>not him but tcp/ip was specifically for the military
TCP was developed at Stanford as a generic protocol which DARPA then latched onto. The first users of the protocol were Stanford and some Brit university, not the military.
>>29796258
Nuclear weapons, international trade, and globalization make war a lot less likely to occur.
As a % of GDP America went from 5% in 2009-2010 to 3.8% in 2015-2016.
>>29797083
You mean the money that goes to it does.
The US should keep up it's military spending, if you're okay with being a KEK that is.
every dollar America spend son it's defense budget is a dollar eurocucker libs don't have to spend. They can spend all their money on free healthcare, education, american developed drugs and teenage pussy, while Americans are locked in the cuckshed getting shot at by Iraqis.
>>29797342
Actually UMichigan and Stanford set up the first connections followed by Cambridge but all with DOD/MOD funding.
>>29797421
>Cuck
>Cuck
>Cuck.
>>29797455
>In 1975, a two-network TCP/IP communications test was performed between Stanford and University College London (UCL)
>In November, 1977, a three-network TCP/IP test was conducted between sites in the US, the UK, and Norway
euros get pentagon funding?
>>29797464
You know it's true. Donald Trump realizes this, and has been trying to wake you up for years!
>W-what, You don't want to be Europe's cuck? Come on! it's 2016!
Some cultures are better than others. When a strong culture dominates others, it transmits its good values to the inferior culture. If we didn't have inequality in armed forces, there would be little power to transmit good culture and institutions.
>>29797488
none of those transmissions would have taken place without development by private actors like Bell Labs
>>29797511
All that cultural exchange has been working real well in the new millennium thus far.
>>29797542
Yes, that is the point.
At best, the military provides funding to develop a technology which is then taken to commercial fruition by the private actors.
At worst the military steals money from the private economy and prevents them from developing new technologies.
>>29797488
first tests were at Stanford and U of Michigan in 1969. Bell labs being heavily involved. Norway and The UK are not with the same status as other European countries. Yes they participate in mutual defense with the USA in a different way than the EU or NATO.
>>29797715
are you talking about arpanet or tcp? because the tcp protocol didn't exist in 1969, not even as a concept.
>>29797738
Ah you like the solve rather than the problem. OK MOD of both the UK and Norway help fund the rest of it. Also for similar reasons Canada. it's a military problem. SOSUS and such.
![total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/DMt1KVP.png "total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted[1].png")
>>29796258
tell him to do actual research instead of reading blogs/clickbait
The benefits of military spending are even harder to quantify than any other spending we do; not only does it take years to build up a competent military, but it takes even less time to lose a tremendous amount of invaluable experience.
>>29797310
I don't think you even know what social security and medicare are, if you think they don't serve a purpose.
>>29797765
your posts are barely coherent. sosus is not a high bandwidth application (even by contemporary standards).
>it's a military problem
no it wasn't, the ideas behind tcp were formulated by xerox even before the stanford research group standardized them (and again before DARPA ever got involved).
any claim that the internet was developed by the military is total bullshit.
>>29796450
>big military is big government and could enforce tyranny
Stopped reading there.
Open a book you fucking moron; 85% or more of the military would defect if given orders to subjugate the people by force.
>>29801526
>Open a book you fucking moron; 85% or more of the military would defect if given orders to subjugate the people by force.
Tell us more. What book says this?
>>29801583
>What is the military Oath
>>29801605
The basically the same oath that any government employee swears upon being hired.
>>29796656
So it's only a free market when the going's good?
>>29801526
>what is the milgram experiment
>oath specifically states the soldier will obey legal orders
>legality of orders is decided by the government
>>29799510
I think you know what they are but little about them.
Anyway be glad about paying something you'll never get yourself. They say it'll be bankrupt in 2030's or so. So they'll have to take money from something else, and millions of old voters will see to it.
>>29801605
>oath
>book
![Kent_State_massacre[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/r6VriKH.jpg "Kent_State_massacre[1].jpg")
>the military surely would NEVER fire on americans!
>85% of the military would disobey orders and lay down arms for SURE!
>>29801605
It's an oath to defend the Constitution not an oath to the military. If the military acts in an unconstitutional manner, it's an illegal order.
>>29801736
>Unwashed crowds of literal Communists supporting the enemy in Vietnam
>Real Constitution-loving Americans
By your logic shooting a bunch of domestic Muslims vowing to help ISIS wipe out America and attacking random people is also "tyranny."
>>29801738
Exactly, any order to abolish the 2nd Amendment would violate the Constitution and the military would be sworn to fight against the ones attempting the abolition, even if it's the shit-eating Feds.
>>29801736
Yeah, its not like the protesters burnt down the ROTC building and were throwing rocks and teargas cannisters at the troops and basically going full chimp-out mode for like 4 days straight.
Nope. They totally just decided to open fire for literally zero reason whatsoever.
>>29801944
Right, and I'm sure the military would have plenty of good reasons to shoot at protesters in any future uprisings.
>>29801736
Fucking hippies deserved it.
It could have been done by the KKK though, no need for big government.
>>29801963
That really depends on whether the protesters are, infact, protesting, rather than, you know, being fucking niggers. The first tends to garner some sympathy, while the later almost universally results in bringin' down da hamma.
Theres been plenty of instances (although not really in the US) of military troops joining the side of protesters. Historically speaking, its the police forces that are the ones who are doing the violent crackdowns, rather than the military.
So yeah. Dont chimp out, and you might find that the military is not really out to get you to begin with.
>>29801963
If there's any branch or part of branch that's going to be the most willing will be the National Guard because they actually have some authority for domestic upheavel, and will be on the front lines.
Navy, Marines, Chair Force, and Big Army will nope out. Then they'll quit real quick when they see all the other vets are in the crowd of people shooting back.
>>29796258
Of course goyim, make sure to keep that military spending up! You've got to protect cowardly Europeans that hate your guts, conniving Zionists that want to destroy your country and corporate imperialism thats reduced your middle class to a distant memory
>>29797793
>The benefits of military spending are even harder to quantify than any other spending we do
Translation: "there are no benefits just like all the other spending"
>>29802276
>There are no benefits to any spending
Is this the extreme end of libertarianism or what
>>29802300
No he's an idiot. I'm lolbiterian. The governments over inflated is our opinion, not that all spending is pointless.
>>29802300
The government is certainly incapable of actually generating wealth from the boatloads of money that they steal, so if benefit is defined as creating a positive return, then libertarians aren't alone in that belief.
