How do you think the military budget can be reduced logically? (Page 2)

[Astarlessnightsky]

What do you mean?

Just spent less money on military stuff.

[Recurrence]

I would want the army to be turned inward to work on infrastructure, roads, fiber optic cable, and an intercontinental public transportation system

[Anonymous]

Scrap all the (extremely expensive to acquire and run) aircraft carriers. Carriers are as useful as battleships these days, they're obsolete.

[Exterminatore]

You know nothing about naval warfare.

[Opinion Owner]

@Exterminatore And you do? Well Mr. Naval Expert, do explain, if you wouldn't mind, the necessity for keeping great big floating targets that house approx. 5,000 personnel, are only really useful against nations that can't really defend themselves (like Libya), that would be extremely vulnerable if used against any country with a decent sized air force and/or navy (like Russia and China), which require constant protection from (again, expensive and manpower intensive) escorts like the Ticonderoga class cruisers, and which have no effective defence against the latest hypersonic missiles that are either being developed, or are already in service, with the Soviet and Chinese navies.
Then of course there are UAV's, drones, and other recent developments in technology that will soon make combat pilots obsolete. Don't you keep up with the news?

[Opinion Owner]

"... which require constant protection from (again, expensive and manpower intensive) escorts like the Ticonderoga class cruisers..."
I messed this up. What I meant to say was that they needed the expensive and equally vulnerable cruisers to protect them from incoming threats.

[Danny_dan92]

Uhhh… you do realize that carriers carry more than aircraft right? Are you in the navy?

[Opinion Owner]

@Danny_dan92 Is this question directed at Exterminatore or me? Yes, I know they're more than just carriers of aircraft. Still, they're sitting ducks in the modern world.

[Exterminatore]

You would be completely incorrect about a number of your assertions.

First of all aircraft carriers were used in WWII. Primarily in the Pacific. The Japanese were perfectly capable of defending themselves and were a worthy adversary. There is historical use right there that proves your point wrong.

Typically we expect wars in the future to be low intensity. An aircraft carrier is a portable airfield. Currently the US has 20 aircraft carriers. Carriers can carry 85-90 different types of aircraft. Enough to suit any mission. If we want them to be all combat aircraft that’s 1700 planes conservatively across the 20 carriers. That is an astounding amount of fire power. Those planes can also protect the carrier.

Most carriers can move fast enough to outrun subs. Carriers also typically carry aircraft that’s capable of disrupting enemy radar and communications. Additionally where a carrier is there are more US ships loaded with tuna of weapons. Carriers have surface to air missiles and multiple Sea Wiz’s. A sea wiz is a Gatling gun capable of taking out missiles. They also have anti torpedo systems. None of this sounds like an air craft carrier is defenseless.

Cruisers are not carriers. We’re talking about carriers.

Do you listen to everything you hear on the news or do you research things on your own?

Cruisers are also not vulnerable as you assert.

If the US were to invade a major country by see we would need all that air support for an amphibious landing.

With a carrier you have the ability to call in constant air strikes in a place you have no run way.

You should study warfare instead of listing to the news regarding these matters.

[rcljr]

The military budget is fine, we need to eliminate $ billions in money we send to foreign countries, billions in food stamp, Medicaid, welfare, pet projects of politicians.

[Stoner710]

Not with the raise of China in the South China Sea and we would be required to go to war with China if they attack Taiwan

[captain_voidwalker]

Stop stationing troops overseas and Station them along our southern border

[jshm2]

By using foreign mercenaries, gangs and terror groups, like the USA used to do in the 60's?

[TheSpaceGnome]

Stop fighting wars over resources or gaining land, only go to war in self defense, watch the spending go down by a mile.

[dreamstar72]

Just say NO to most foreign causes. We seem to have forgotten our nation is in need.

[andreasderjuengere]

Launch the existing nukes on your favourite enemies. There will be no budget required, thereafter.

[cth96190]

Withdraw from foreign wars and close most foreign bases. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

It can't. You have china growing stronger. And when they take Africa it will be bad for the USA.
Also the Chinese keep going further and further towards areas not there's.

[genericname85]

Easy. You give the military less money. That's how.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

In the U. S. it can't. America is heavily invested imperialism which means you have no choice but to heavily invest in a military budget.

[Exterminatore]

By eliminating transgender people and homosexuals from the military.

[Anonymous]

I like this idea. The civil war will go much easier if we can reduce the standing army and the ex-soldiers will disproportionately fight for the right wing

[okeydoke]

Blowing up the world. If there’s no planet, they’ll be no enemies to build up arms against.

[EnglishEuropean]

If politicians stop taking bribes from the military-industrial complex.

[Retiever]

I believe logically once technically we are caught up with the rest of the super powers yes.

[dragoblack]

Contracting the military to allies. If we are going to have bases in every country might as well