Is our military large enough to deal with America's enemies?

Question

Should our military be bigger, smaller, or is it the right size?

Whether U support the Iraq War or not....SUPPORT OUR VETS!

well scorebore....if you don't like my questions.....don't answer them!

And Scorbore....since how you don't like Liberal Vets, and your such an expert on VETS....when are you gonna become one?

and Scorbore....I wasn't in the Army! The USAF. And you still condsider yourself a expert on vets? You need to become one, and practice what you preach!

my address is [e-mail]., and it is confirmed. I also have Yahoo IM, and a neat 360.

Answer 1

This is actually a trick question depending on what government officials are in office...

A republican in office = creates more enemies therefore we need an ENORMOUS military.

A democrat in office = more diplomacy and negotiating skills around the world, not to mention global respect, therefore we don't need such a large military.

Answer 2

Our military is more than sufficient to deal with any threat from another *nation*. Specifically, missile-launched nuclear warheads could be used to deter or annihilate any nation that felt compelled to invade United States territory.

However, we now have to consider other enemies; terrorists pledge allegiance to no state. It is increasingly difficult to combat such enemies, especially since there would be no way to eliminate all 'terrorists' without turning our weapons upon our own territory.

Ironically, the terrorist threat tends to *grow* in proportion to our use of our military. When waging proxy wars with Russia in Afghanistan, we trained the Taliban to fight. Now they fight us.

Therefore, as long as we maintain the ability to project force using just nuclear weapons, we really do not need a large military. The smaller the military - or, more accurately, the less we use it - the lower the chance of destabilizing regions and creating new insurgencies.

Answer 3

Not in the way that matters. No matter how much weaponry and sophisticated technology you have, it still comes down to putting soldiers on the ground.
Israel just found that out in Lebanon. Even if we had 400,000 troops in Iraq, it would not be enough.

If 25 million people are determined to have a civil war, there really is not much you can do about.

I wonder if Saddam would take his old job pack. At least there were no terrorists in Iraq when he was in charge.


****************************

super shiraz -

A communal feast is the result of not living communally?

This is planet Earth. You made a wrong turn somewhere.

Fortunately, I don't have time to think about this.

Answer 4

I've got a funny feeling that our troop strength is not what it really should be to properly fend off an attack. It seems that National Guardsmen are picking up way too much of the slack. It also seems that America's enemies are growing in strength and number. If they team up against us, it could get very ugly. I just hope I'm wrong about all of this, or I never get to find out.

Answer 5

Smaller. We have a military thats designed to "project force" anywhere in the world. We are really the only country that can. We spend almost half our discretionary budget on gee-whiz gizmos that won't help us find the terrorists. But as I've said before " If your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems look like nails"

Answer 6

every where socialism has been tried it has failed.

the USSR crumbled
China is going capitalist
Canadas health care systems is bankrupt
Sweeden is going bankrupt
France has a 11% unemnployment rate.

the Pilgrims abandonded communal living after near starvation and adopted the concept of private property and self reliance. The end result was Thankgsgiving.

Answer 7

Can one define military purely by the number of its members?
Our defense systems supercede those of any other country in the world. While China may have 100 million ready and waiting to defend the country that gives them no freedom, we have a few million good men and women who so wish to be able to give their existence to the idea of freedom that upholds this grand nation.

Answer 8

hey man, i respect you, you seem somewhat open minded. i agree with supporting troops and vets and even though i dislike the war i support them.

To the first bit, there are ways to creat fewer enemys, I think the military is out of control size and money wise and that all that money does is line the pockets of halaberten execs.

Answer 9

Since our military is meant to defend our nation, it could be alot smaller and still do the job. Invading nations when it suits a president is not defending our nation.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/americanleftparty/

Answer 10

If George Bush would stop invading countries at random, it might be just about the right size.