Milterized Countries

Discussion in 'World Events' started by safXmal, Jul 18, 2003.

  1. safXmal Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    Militarized Countries

    I wonder what would happen if the next president of the US would declare that the military spending would be cut in half.
    Could the US survive the transition relatively unharmed or would there be tanks in the streets of Washington?

    I ask this question because I believe that this would be a good indicator to see if a country is too militarized and perhaps on the brink of a military coup.

    I believe I can predict the outcome in my country - Belgium -. So let's try to analyze it.

    Small army: if I remember it correctly about 30.000 men (and women) on a population of 9 million
    No supporting industry: most of the weapons are bought abroad
    No political/public support: they're regarded upon as lazy bums anyway and have no voting cloud

    Predicted outcome: Demonstrations by the soldiers in Brussels and absorbtion of them in other parts of the government
    Some little companies that live of the military - Pubs,caterers and such - would go bankrupt
    Political consequences : none

    Have you an idea how it would pass in your country?

    Saf
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jerrek Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,548
    It wouldn't pass.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Teg Unknown Citizen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    672
    It depends on where they cut it

    You see most of the money spent here in the US is on weapons. Any one aircraft has a price tag that makes the lottery seem pathetic. If they cut it straight down the line, evenly distributed amongst weapons and soldiers, the US would have no way of holding its foreign territories.

    The number of soldiers needed for long term occupation go as follows: 3 for every 1 occupier. That means one being prepped, one waiting back at home, and one occupying. Right now there are about 400,000 troops deployed worldwide. About 46,000 are home in the US. So you see they are violating the rule at this point.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Zero Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,355
    Agree with J. Wouldn't pass. Therefore irrelevant question.

    Now, 3000 years in the future, another story.
     
  8. safXmal Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    This is not really what I meant.

    I know it's not feasible to cut down the American army today. We couldn't even do it in Belgium: we wouldn't be able to forfill our obligations in the NATO if we did that.

    What I meant was that in Belgium the army would be unable to do anything against it. If the government decided that we could go by with half the force we have then the army would have to accept it because they have not the military capacity to do a "coup d'etat" and what's more not even a schred of support to try to do it.

    Now what would happen in the US if the government decided to cut back funds so drasticly? Would the army rise and take over the power in your country.
    The American Army has the military capacity to do this and perhaps - I'm not sure about this - also the political and industrial support for it.

    Wouldn't it go well for some hawks in your government that the US has to be protected against the weakening of the US - against all costs?
     
  9. Redrover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    234
    I wouldn't want to say military-industrial complex but...

    Before you would ber able to cut the american military by half, you would have to pass alot of powerfull senators who get a lot of jobs in their constituancy from the arms industry.
     
  10. Dougermouse Mostly Normal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    They even farm out weapons contracts to that every state has a job to loose if a weapon system gets cancelled. When Carter was trying to kill the B-1, it was reported 48 states had jobs because of the B-1, and everyone was going to loose if the B-1 lost out. Its politically very hard to say peace dividend every where but in my district and have it stick.
    My state has like 3 contracts to produce for the military, so it won't hurt us much. But states like Missouri, Georgia and California are so dependant that Congress makes the military buy things they don't want just to keep the jobs. (C-130J and Air refueler version of the 757 are examples)
    As to the economic effects, look at what happened in the Phillipines after the US left. It turns out that GI's spend money on more than hookers and beer. ( I know the Phillipines had other troubles, but the "free" money the GIs brought in could have help keep it from being so bad)

    And its not the jobs they are worried about, its the re-election fund donations. To quote an Arizona senator who's name escapes me:"I always go with the special interests. The public, they forget, but the lobbyists remember."
     
  11. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    Remember the Clinton administration? He DID cut our military in half. So what happened?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    In half? you wish. I thought it meant that you didnt get so involved in ill advised military adventures around the globe.
     
  13. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    I figure the military would follow the chain of command. They would have to cut a lot of stuff and few military guys would be happy about that but doubt there would be anything big. There might be a few military nuts but nothing on the scale you are suggesting. The civillians on the other hand would go rabid over suych a thing.

    There might be calls for impeachment.

    I certainly wouldn't vote for a nut that would cut the military that much at a time like this. Nor would most of america in the wake of 9-11.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2003
  14. aghart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    372
    this is not the third world, troops on the streets in open rebellion, no way, In the UK they would be to busy studying the redundency package.
     

Share This Page