Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

United States military spending

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:07:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

+1
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:33:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Spending on the military is a burden. China and Russia are not threats to the United States. China and Russia are threats to their respective neighbors. America is not a neighbor of either, save for Alaska. (I don't think Russia cares all that much about Alaska.) China and Russia don't have to be America's problem.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:42:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:33:15 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Spending on the military is a burden. China and Russia are not threats to the United States. China and Russia are threats to their respective neighbors. America is not a neighbor of either, save for Alaska. (I don't think Russia cares all that much about Alaska.) China and Russia don't have to be America's problem.

China and Russia are not currently threats to the United States (at least not extremely), but there's no reason that should remain true forever. I think it would be fair to say they are the United States' greatest threat overall though.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 6:52:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:42:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:33:15 PM, Death23 wrote:
Spending on the military is a burden. China and Russia are not threats to the United States. China and Russia are threats to their respective neighbors. America is not a neighbor of either, save for Alaska. (I don't think Russia cares all that much about Alaska.) China and Russia don't have to be America's problem.

China and Russia are not currently threats to the United States (at least not extremely), but there's no reason that should remain true forever. I think it would be fair to say they are the United States' greatest threat overall though.

It sounds like you're saying that China and Russia are not threats to the United States, but at the same time you're saying that China and Russia are the greatest threat to the United States. This seems paradoxical to me.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:08:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 6:52:09 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:42:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:33:15 PM, Death23 wrote:
Spending on the military is a burden. China and Russia are not threats to the United States. China and Russia are threats to their respective neighbors. America is not a neighbor of either, save for Alaska. (I don't think Russia cares all that much about Alaska.) China and Russia don't have to be America's problem.

China and Russia are not currently threats to the United States (at least not extremely), but there's no reason that should remain true forever. I think it would be fair to say they are the United States' greatest threat overall though.

It sounds like you're saying that China and Russia are not threats to the United States, but at the same time you're saying that China and Russia are the greatest threat to the United States. This seems paradoxical to me.

I meant that they're not threats in the immediate sense of the word. Like they're not actively plotting against us. But they pose the greatest danger.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:17:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:08:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:52:09 PM, Death23 wrote:
It sounds like you're saying that China and Russia are not threats to the United States, but at the same time you're saying that China and Russia are the greatest threat to the United States. This seems paradoxical to me.

I meant that they're not threats in the immediate sense of the word. Like they're not actively plotting against us. But they pose the greatest danger.

What danger do they pose to us? I do not understand.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:20:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Manpower =/= firepower or technological power. China and Russia have decades of catching up to do before they even come close to matching US military power, even if the US was to just maintain their advantage from here into the future.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:20:47 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Manpower =/= firepower or technological power. China and Russia have decades of catching up to do before they even come close to matching US military power, even if the US was to just maintain their advantage from here into the future.

Additionally, China has no interest (at the moment) of engaging in a "hot war" with the United States. Wars are destructive. China wants a peaceful rise.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:53:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

Twice as much is an outlier.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Um...yay for fear mongering? Where did that lead is in 2003 again?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:55:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:53:04 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Um...yay for fear mongering? Where did that lead us in 2003 again?

Fix'd.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 8:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:20:47 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Manpower =/= firepower or technological power. China and Russia have decades of catching up to do before they even come close to matching US military power, even if the US was to just maintain their advantage from here into the future.

When did I imply that manpower = military might?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 8:54:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:21:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:20:47 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Manpower =/= firepower or technological power. China and Russia have decades of catching up to do before they even come close to matching US military power, even if the US was to just maintain their advantage from here into the future.

Additionally, China has no interest (at the moment) of engaging in a "hot war" with the United States. Wars are destructive. China wants a peaceful rise.

I don't disagree.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 9:04:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:21:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:20:47 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Manpower =/= firepower or technological power. China and Russia have decades of catching up to do before they even come close to matching US military power, even if the US was to just maintain their advantage from here into the future.

Additionally, China has no interest (at the moment) of engaging in a "hot war" with the United States. Wars are destructive. China wants a peaceful rise.

According to a poll, most Chinese people believe that China could defeat the U.S. in a war. This might inspire them to try.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 9:09:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:53:04 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

Twice as much is an outlier.

The world average is 2.3 percent, so it's not twice as much. Anyway, the United States does not even come close to being the country with the highest spending on military as percentage of GDP, so it's not an outlier. If you want to talk about outliers, you can talk about North Korea, which spends 25 percent of its GDP on military.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Um...yay for fear mongering? Where did that lead is in 2003 again?

1. It's not fear mongering. China and Russia have a proven track record of human rights violation and tyrannical dictatorships. As recent as 50 years ago, Russia almost started a nuclear war. There's no reason to think that if the United States reduced its military spending that China and Russia would not seize the opportunity to expand their influence. It could become Crimea x 1000.
2. I'm not advocating that we invade any countries.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 9:37:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 9:09:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:53:04 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

Twice as much is an outlier.

The world average is 2.3 percent, so it's not twice as much. Anyway, the United States does not even come close to being the country with the highest spending on military as percentage of GDP, so it's not an outlier. If you want to talk about outliers, you can talk about North Korea, which spends 25 percent of its GDP on military.

Yes, but look at the total GDP of the US. They are an absolute outlier because of it. To equal the average spending of some European countries they would need a fraction of what they spend now.

The US' total nominal GDP is just a trillion less than the entire EU.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Um...yay for fear mongering? Where did that lead is in 2003 again?

1. It's not fear mongering. China and Russia have a proven track record of human rights violation and tyrannical dictatorships. As recent as 50 years ago, Russia almost started a nuclear war. There's no reason to think that if the United States reduced its military spending that China and Russia would not seize the opportunity to expand their influence. It could become Crimea x 1000.

Crimea - I remind you that Crimeans greatly prefer Russian rule over Ukrainian. Just a thought.

And besides, a tiny peninsula is not the entire fvcking eastern half of Europe.

2. I'm not advocating that we invade any countries.

Good. China seems to think that war with the US is a bad idea anyway.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 10:31:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 9:09:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. It's not fear mongering. China and Russia have a proven track record of human rights violation and tyrannical dictatorships. As recent as 50 years ago, Russia almost started a nuclear war. There's no reason to think that if the United States reduced its military spending that China and Russia would not seize the opportunity to expand their influence. It could become Crimea x 1000.
2. I'm not advocating that we invade any countries.

What in it for us to provide defense for other countries? I don't see much benefit from it. Let Russia take over Ukraine. Let China dominate the South China Sea. So what? It doesn't make much difference from an American perspective. If countries want us to protect them, then there should be a tangible benefit that America receives in return that justifies the cost of providing that defense. Right now there are dozens of free-loading nations (e.g. NATO signatories; Japan; South Korea) that rely on America to protect them and don't give anything in return. It's a bad deal for America. We don't need their protection. They need ours. They aren't paying for it. We are.
no1special
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 5:20:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The reason people take issue with the amount of spending is due to a number of factors, not just the one you mention. If what we were doing abroad actually helped our interests more than it further complicated everything I don't think people would have as much of an issue with it, if the money were being used efficiently (something which senior members of the military as well as soldiers have complained about) people wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, if we could use just a tiny fraction of what we spend on the military to take better care of our veterans and their families I don't think people would have such a problem with it. But the fact of the matter is that none of this is happening.

The more we spend and the more we intervene in other states affairs the more we will have to spend due to having more enemies and having to maintain a presence to ensure our interests are secure in these places. That is before one factors in the loss of life not only for our adversaries but for ourselves. Military action should be a last resort, if we put the amount of money we spend on the military into constructive foreign policy rather than destructive foreign policy the world would likely be a much more peaceful place and we would have more money to spend on domestic policy, and its not like were alone against China and Russia anyway, we have NATO, and we have the EU on our side as well.

I don't think anyone thinks we should just abandon our current position completely, but if we slowly scale it back and pursue a more diplomatic path I don't see how we would be in a worse position than we are now. The US and the "west" are the ones with the power, other states react to us, not the other way around, and if there is anything to be learned from history it is that silence is not peace.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 11:35:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 8:54:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:21:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:20:47 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Manpower =/= firepower or technological power. China and Russia have decades of catching up to do before they even come close to matching US military power, even if the US was to just maintain their advantage from here into the future.

Additionally, China has no interest (at the moment) of engaging in a "hot war" with the United States. Wars are destructive. China wants a peaceful rise.

I don't disagree.

Then, what's the issue? Their military is antiquated compared to the U.S. They are years behind technologically, assuming the U.S. stays constant. And Chinese officials want a peaceful rise.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 11:39:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 9:04:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:21:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:20:47 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Manpower =/= firepower or technological power. China and Russia have decades of catching up to do before they even come close to matching US military power, even if the US was to just maintain their advantage from here into the future.

Additionally, China has no interest (at the moment) of engaging in a "hot war" with the United States. Wars are destructive. China wants a peaceful rise.

According to a poll, most Chinese people believe that China could defeat the U.S. in a war. This might inspire them to try.

Which poll? And since when did the Chinese government care about individual opinions? They are an authoritarian country. Second, even if they try:

1) their military is highly corrupt and I'll trained officers have made it too the top;
2) their military is antiquated, and technologically inferior (decades behind);
3) U.S. Has much more firepower and better trained officers
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 4:22:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 11:39:03 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 9:04:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:21:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:20:47 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Manpower =/= firepower or technological power. China and Russia have decades of catching up to do before they even come close to matching US military power, even if the US was to just maintain their advantage from here into the future.

Additionally, China has no interest (at the moment) of engaging in a "hot war" with the United States. Wars are destructive. China wants a peaceful rise.

According to a poll, most Chinese people believe that China could defeat the U.S. in a war. This might inspire them to try.

Which poll? And since when did the Chinese government care about individual opinions? They are an authoritarian country. Second, even if they try:

1) their military is highly corrupt and I'll trained officers have made it too the top;
2) their military is antiquated, and technologically inferior (decades behind);
3) U.S. Has much more firepower and better trained officers

I disagree. For example, according to some sources, the new fighter they're developing has superior fighter AND stealth capabilities compared to both the F-22 and the F-35.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:04:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 4:22:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/18/2015 11:39:03 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 9:04:23 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:21:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 7:20:47 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/17/2015 3:23:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many people are under the illusion that America's military spending is far beyond what is reasonable. Usually such people will point to the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. What this statistic fails to mention, however, is that in terms of spending as percentage of GDP, the United States isn't even close to being an outlier. The Unites States spends 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, compared to 2.2 percent in France and the U.K., 1.8 percent in Australia, and 1.2 percent in Germany.

If China and Russia joined forces, they their combined military spending would be half of what America currently spends - and their combined population is over five times greater! That means if America lowered its military spending to a level comparable with most other countries, we would be outspent and outnumbered by a China-Russia coalition. Do we really want that? Of course, you could argue that America could simply increase its military spending when the time called for it, but in doing so we would sacrifice technological progress and potentially allow like China and Russia to expand their influence.

Manpower =/= firepower or technological power. China and Russia have decades of catching up to do before they even come close to matching US military power, even if the US was to just maintain their advantage from here into the future.

Additionally, China has no interest (at the moment) of engaging in a "hot war" with the United States. Wars are destructive. China wants a peaceful rise.

According to a poll, most Chinese people believe that China could defeat the U.S. in a war. This might inspire them to try.

Which poll? And since when did the Chinese government care about individual opinions? They are an authoritarian country. Second, even if they try:

1) their military is highly corrupt and I'll trained officers have made it too the top;
2) their military is antiquated, and technologically inferior (decades behind);
3) U.S. Has much more firepower and better trained officers

I disagree. For example, according to some sources, the new fighter they're developing has superior fighter AND stealth capabilities compared to both the F-22 and the F-35.

If you're talking about the Shenyang J-31, it has a really bad design, loses altitude when making turns, and is too heavy. If you're talking about the Chengdu J-20, then yes, China will have it's first aircraft able to match the US Airforce today, let alone in 2017 and 2018 (when the J-20 will be operational.) Also, to allow the J-20 to even match the F-22, China had to steal the designs from Lockheed Martin by hacking into their systems. So, it's not even like they could come up with their own systems.

Even if China can match US technology (by stealing), they have an extremely rigid and corrupt command structure which will undermine any ability to combat the United States. The Chinese government is currently trying to root out corrupt officers, but that will take many years as it goes all the way to the top. There are no signs of allowing lower tier officers to independently make decisions. This is in contrast with the United States officer corp which is much, much less corrupt and much less rigid.

The US Military isn't standing still technologically though:

1. The US Navy has developed technologies allowing the SM-6 surface to air missiles to hit targets moving at supersonic speed from one ship using data collected by sensors from distant sensors. The technology will potentially allow the US Navy to act as a grid defense system;
2. The US Navy and Airforce are developing a 6th generation fighter codenamed F/A - XX. The design is currently conceptual.