Any good reason for high US military spending?

Weak. Ass. Allies.

Because speaking Chinese sucks.

Nope, nukes do. Russia still keeps nukes from 60s and there isnt a chance anyone will ever attack it. Cold war didnt become hot for a reason

Because Petrodollar.
Ever since the dollar isn't backed by gold anymore (Nixon), it needs to be backed by something else - in this case oil, gas and the big stick.
If you don't play by US rules, you get the big stick.
That's it.

because the weak should fear the strong

Military power is more important than anything else in the world for your economy.
Our allies even get to safely grow due to our military power.
All money and little to no military means a foreign nation can fuck you any way it wants.
Why are so many people so stupid? Why do you faggots think military might is meaningless? Why to you keep eating the bullshit that keeps you naive and easy to use?

>ny good reason for high WELFARE spending?
Does anyone here justifice high WELFARE spending? It makes no sense for more reasons
> inb4 it help economy grow, it also develops wealth that "trickles up"
All of that is true but that money can be spent much better when we are talking about economics. Cutting taxes on profit or improving public infrastructure would help economic growth much more

Germany doesn't have nukes and no one will attack it.
Nukes are almost unusable, anyone that uses them would be obliterated.
We don't have wars because nuclear war is not an option and conventional war would always be won by the US, so anti-US countries won't start it, and the US won't start it becuase they spread their influence through money.
This only works as long as fighting Americans conventionally is not an option, hence the big budget.

No one will invest in a country that is on verge of a socialist rebellion. Gimmedats also boosts population growth. Economic equality lowers the crime rate which has positive impact on economic development. They also make you country more attractive for immigration (things like guaranted pensions, high job security). Also direct spending makes capital for actual value making far more avaible, companies with their own money can invest much easier without paying the interest rate. Rich people would just hoard their additional money that would get if we abolished welfare

>conventional war would always be won by the US
lol if any of the major powers (USA, China, Russia) tried to invade eachother, the invader would get obliterated.

Nuclear diplomacy is real and is the reason we haven't had a major war in a while.

>Any good reason for high US military spending?
I'd tell you but it would take too long
short answer: 'murrica

If any anti-us country with nuclear arsenal was losing conventional war against US it would certunally use nukes no matter what. Also polarising power spreads peace not centralising it (in former no one can attack anyone in latter us can just bully everyone)

Invasion is not an option, I meant proxy wars.
Syrian war was won by Assad because Americans still had the memory of War on Terror and anyone who sent their troops there en masse would lose the election.
This is the biggest American weakness - they're the only superpower that has to consider voters.

Of course they would. This is why Americans won't start a war.
Centralised power of the US keeps peace because Americans want money, not war. The same is true for the Chinese, they wouldn't start a serious war because it doesn't make economical sense.
It's impossible to keep balance with, say, 5 superpowers that have similar military. Alliances quickly change into chaos, and struggle for power is never peaceful.
America bullies the world into submission, but it's not a bad submission.

I havent said that but you guys spend 2-3 times more than you need.

>Nukes are almost unusable, anyone that uses them would be obliterated.
Any nuclear war between two countries wouldn't just obliterate both countries but would plunge the rest of the world into a nuclear winter.
Even a small scale nuclear war between 2 shithole nations would be enough to cause some serious collateral damage to everyone else

All countries now are more materialistic than imperialistic. It has to do more with people nowdays than politics. I dont want to argue if its actually people who invented materialism first. 5 superpower scenario is impossible at the moment. US+allies are too strong for that scenario. You can buy anything you want with money today

The most probable scenarios (India vs Pakistan and Israel vs Iran) would destroy the world as we know it.
There is no going back from nuclear war.

This is the problem, North Korea, Iran or Israel might not be materialistic.
All it takes is a couple of wrong people at the wrong position.

I dont see any of them doing anything remarkable in either case US military power is strong enough against them. US will lose its superpower status in military the last

Speak softly, but carry a big stick

The reason there is peace (mostly) around the world is because of us.

when you have a lot it takes a lot to protect it

China already was bigger economy according to price adjusted method and it spends almost 5 times less on military

No one uses nukes because they'd be destroyed by everyone else. That ensures that you wouldn't have to worry about nukes if you invade someone who doesn't have them because any retaliation with nukes would also be retaliated against with nukes. So, everyone can still fight normally because no one would use nukes to begin with. That's why we have our military, because it's still feasible to use.

they use the money to build smart bombs to better destroy Serbia

It stores over 200 planes? That's fucking crazy.

I'll take technology for $500

Attached: jeeps.jpg (1280x720, 61K)

Russia wouldnt destroy world (and itself) if serbia took over US protected kosovo. Nukes protect us from WWs and wars in large part (almost no major war atm). Bipolar would would ensure world peace not a single superpower.

World*

...but ever rising

Attached: nah.png (290x299, 27K)

>What is Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman

The US military is also Europe's military and Japan's military and SK's military.

cant you count
>4
>16
>200

Yep im talking about current trends. You couldnt have spend 2% of gdp on military from 1990 to 2025 easierly, probalby longer as you are the only ones who have firm pact with other strong countries or entities. My arguments get weaker each year but they still stand. It also has alot to do with current basis. A single bugdet or ten of them doesnt make US superpower billions invented in US army in past do. So basicly if china takes over your budget by 2035 you will still have superior army till 2050. Its even questionable if higher budget would even self you, bipolar world is future and you nukes themselces would be enough for that

Of course I can, but I know little about ships. I don't know how many planes can be stored below deck or even if its possible.

So you are saying it can't carry that number?

It stores 80 FUNCTIONING combat aircraft.

The spending is putting tax burden on the people that should be having kids.

That was NATO

youtube.com/watch?v=BBe2wpZqN0s&t=2s

Who's the enemy?

i was clearly being sarcastic

So does Korean German Japanese Grenadian ?

So it's weaker than the RAF. And you got to remember that the majority of the fighters your navy uses are very old.

They don't give a fuck about us. I'm a literal genius with a decent income. Currently, I'm in university and I'm surrounded by young women who'd rather have an abortion and a chihuahua then cherish life's greatest gift.

I don't really have any hope for most of society. fucking sucks man

Military wants missiles in space.

Mate it's 4am here, I'm pretty lucid ngl.

Thinking like that put whites in the minority.

Speak softly and carry a big stick, muthafucka.

Attached: GettyImages-515219106-58e1591c3df78c5162a8ecfb.jpg (768x981, 128K)

Military is for global conquest Globalism NWO Corporate profit.

It makes money for the bankers. When we take out a bunch of defense spending, we take a loan from the fed which we owe interest on and is paid off by taxpayers. Every single war is purely to benefit bankers, even the DOD contractros which also make money off the system are just bankers proxies.

Weapons, war and drugs are the most profitable business for the bankers.

dis niggga :~D

Russia, China, Canada and Finland.

China is not an aggressive nation . Corporate america hates Chinesese because they will pay more for resources.

You

Treat of war with China is a media construct .

The majority of your fighters don't work and you have ZERO global firepower presence. You're a fucking brownwater Navy.

Only in spy novels

>China is not an aggressive nation

i beg to differ.

No, it's a shambling wreck of its former self BECAUSE of runaway spending with zero quality control.

Attached: US Military before and after 2001.jpg (960x310, 114K)

Literally none of that is true you retard.

the thing about China is that they won't be talking shit before they hit us, but if they do they will hit hard and quick. Luckily we have great technology

the chinese girl as my school I think wants my dick. she giggles a lot but idk how to talk to her. lol i also don't like chinese women

dude on the right looks like the unit that replaced us in Iraq. Within a week of them showing up their convoy was hit by a IED. The enemy didn't respect them at all.

>he cannot into petrodollar
>he cannot into geopolitics
>he cannot into trade agreements
>he cannot into keeping peace by a threat of force
Like it or not, the game's a lot bigger than you understand. Strong military presence is a way to keep things civil in places where they still use necklacing as a form of punishment, and where soviet weapons still decide elections.

Most countries are cool and they understand the value of trade, but not all, not by a long shot.

if you don't think china is an aggressive nation you haven't been reading on the matter. they built a military base right next to ours in africa, they're buying out all the african nations that use to vote for us in the UN, theyve greatly expanded into the SCS by building islands by dredging up sand and putting military bases on them, they've installed radar jamming and electrical warfare weapons on islands throughout the SCS to disrupt us, they're flooding our country with fentanyl and other designer drugs, they're constantly try to inflate our currency, they have tens of thousands of hackers whose job it is to steal our information and technology, they send hundreds of spies into our country under the guise of foreign exchange students whose only task is to get good grades and get high ranking jobs in tech, military and government so they can funnel secrets back later on, i mean I can just go on and on. your eyes aren't on the ball if you think china isn't the greatest threat to american hegemony.

its not high enough. debate me faggot.

oh noes, so the US DOESN'T have a monopoly on intimidating other nations by blatant and unwarranted military presence? All the things you listed are literally things the US does to other countries.

That being said, anyone saying china isn't aggressive is talking out of their ass.

You don't have an aircraft carrier. Your Astute class subs are noisy shit as are your Vanguard class boomers, your entire air arm is fucking junk and you can barely make the North Sea with your RAF Typhoons that barely can intercept Bears before they enter your EEZ.

You're a joke.

i didn't say they weren't taking moves from out of our playbook, but obviously id rather us be in charge than them. honestly wouldn't care if china was number 1 instead of the US but I don't trust chink bug people who have a chip on their shoulder against the west to deal with the rest of the world any better than we do.

So go to war with China because we buy the stuff they make

Then the fight is here not in the south seas

>leaf
its probably a buttmad bosnian desu

As much as I hate the Jews that run your country, I have agree with you. The bug people morality (or more like the lack thereof) is incompatible with Western thinking.

Not too long ago I watched a Chinese tech researcher commenting on the privacy implications building this
>china's new creepy social credit system (couldn't post a link because fucking filters)
I'm sure you've heard of it. He said
>privacy and corruptions are irrelevant because justice is more important
They are oblivious to the tech dystopia jumping head first into. Despite their education in tech, they obviously haven't read shit like 1984.

>You don't have an aircraft carrier.
We've got two you mong.
>Air arms is shit
Funny that considering we are buying F35 for that. But I'm sure your F18s are so much better suited to the task.
>typhoons
The planes you have which are on par or better are the f22s and f35s. Neither of which are used by your navy at this point on any sort of large scale.

But I'm sure you crying about it will change something.

youtube.com/watch?v=BcxzigtuR9w
So this can happen.
The amount of mistakes.. it was all just a series of unfortunate events.

Attached: 1234353.png (1920x1080, 1.89M)

It creates jobs -- oh and in the event some of you fags try to try some shit you will be destroyed with technology you didn't even think was possible to exist.

>We've got two you mong.
You have two RAMPS on sea trials. None are combat effective.

>a carrier isn't a carrier if I don't like the country it belongs to
Rent free lad

Is QE combat ready, right now? No. Fuck off, Paki.