The debate "The people in the military is what makes it strong not the size of the military." was started by
February 16, 2016, 2:23 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Alex posted 16 arguments, ProudAmerican888 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Alex, ProudAmerican888, MrShine, Jovy, AgnosticAcceptor, alexoliver, MinuteMan101 and 13 visitors agree.
RyanWakefield, sloanstar1000, snehache, Freyja and 2 visitors disagree.
Based on what? Why do you assume that other targets are being neglected?
You also seem to have misunderstood a few other things. 1 air strike does not mean 1 bomb dropped. An air strike is an operation, so there are often multiple bombs/missiles used.
You also seem to have limited understanding of the destructive capabilities of some of the ordinances being used. The US has used Tomahawk land attack missiles in some strikes. Here is a link looking at their power.
While that won't level an entire base, it can easily destroy most buildings.
you completely ignored my point, as usual. you made a comparison that wasn't close to the same thing. I used an example to show how your comparison was useless. you ignored what I actually said and tried to twist it into your favour (and failed).
you aren't suggesting we use better weapons. you just want to drop more bombs on anyone who even looks like they could be a terrorist. this is not an acceptable plan. it cant work.
you still didn't answer why they can't destroy a target. you just said they can destroy it. which is it? do you have any evidence at all for your wild, random oppinons?
if all the attacks are at one place they can, but then there would be other targets to destroy.
do we have a better way to win then air attacks? I see air attacks as being the most powerful weapon besides nuclear ones.
I think the Romans used the best tech and military stragagies they had. that's why they won. if we were the Romans we would be fighting with low grade swords and only a sword, when high grade swords and shields are lying around.
that's like saying the Romans won wars with swords, why not use what works? it is an unfair comparison. they are two very different scenarios.
so do you have any evidence that they are unable to destroy large targets? Because if not I'm just going to completely disregard that because it's just an unfounded opinion of yours.
it is quite hard to destroy large bases with only a few air strikes per day. also did you not see my logic about civilian deaths? hit oil trucks that are going to ISIS and helping them. kill 1 civilian to save many others. the longer the war (and it looks like it is going on for a while) the more deaths.
I see in the gulf war is we won that one. why not do what worked? I see an enemy in the gulf war getting killed by air strikes. why won't we do that
the gulf war wasn't against terrorists. it was against a conventional army fighting in the field. it is completely different to the current situation.
I have told you over and over. they are bombing every target they can find. there aren't more targets that they are sure of. if you bomb targets you aren't sure of you will kill ALOT more civilians and make the situation much worse. and since they don't have more targets, it won't speed to war to a conclusion because it would be largely aimless bombing. it could even more ISIS stronger by convincing more people to support them because America is butchering civilians.
what makes you think they can't destroy a large target? do you have any evidence of that?
do you not understand how bombing campaigns work? you can't just bomb trucks at will. you need confirmation of targets. the civilian casualties are already high. if you start bombing unvetted targets then they will sky rocket. and nothing feeds terrorism more than sloppy bombing."
nothing kills terrorists like bombs.
how did we win the gulf war? by bombing. in war civilians die, that's a fact. you know how many civilians died in WWII? a lot. let's say there are 2 civilian casualties a day, but because you don't go full strength the war lasts 5 years. that's over 3.5k. now if you have 100 civilian deaths per day, the war would last a few months, and overall lives would be saved.
and what is the point of repeatedly bombing a destroyed target?
the US is currently doing not enough attacks to destroy a large target. we should destroy these targets with many air attacks.
do you not understand how bombing campaigns work? you can't just bomb trucks at will. you need confirmation of targets. the civilian casualties are already high. if you start bombing unvetted targets then they will sky rocket. and nothing feeds terrorism more than sloppy bombing.
and what is the point of repeatedly bombing a destroyed target? and even if you did it would result in civilian casualties. the area would be full of medical personnel, and people trying to help.
I never said "completely safe" but I believe in a future for america where there are no mass school shootings, or other shootings. a future where our enemies fear us, and our alies trust us.
Hilary on the other hand thinks what we have now is the best we can do.
again, that's stupid. we don't have hundreds of targets to bomb. we can't find them fast enough. we are bombing as fast as we can.
umm we do know where there are terrorists, we do see terrorist oil trucks and stuff. we do not bomb these. and how about bomb a place until all the terrorists are dead. bomb 1 target many times perhaps?
that is a stupid thing to say Alex. America won't ever feel completely safe. there will always be threats, no matter what you do or what you spend. so fear is not a reasonable defense for rediculous over spending.
again, that's stupid. we don't have hundreds of targets to bomb. we can't find them fast enough. we are bombing as fast as we can. and we have been bombing terrorists for decades. the problem isn't getting better. you can't bomb away terrorism. it doesn't work. it doesn't matter how many bombers you buy, that doesn't help the underlying problem. until you deal with that terrorism will keep happening.
once we launch a few hundred air strikes per day on ISIS and completely desteoy them no terrorist in the world would attack us.
we draw the line when the American people are no longer afraid of outside threats, when the safety of america can be what it once was, and when our enemies fear us, and don't dare attack our great nation.
that would only make sense to a point. yes you should be prepared to fight so that others won't attack. but where do you draw the line. you spend more that the rest of the top 10 combined. and most of those are your allies. the truth is that no one would fight NATO. its suicide. you could cut spending by half or even 3/4 and it would still be suicide. half of the developed world are your declared allies. no one is going to engage in a traditional war against you, so spending hundreds of billions of dollars has no effect at all on the outcome.
and before you play the terrorist card, it hasn't stopped terrorists so far. there is no reason to believe it will intimidate them.
"Who do you think will be fighting that this level of spending is necessary?"
seems like the movie refrence did not work. you spend on the military so you don't have to fight. a war will cost way more then 581 billion, and if we make our military worse we will have more wars.
Are you ever going to address facts rather than movie references and opinion? In 2014 the US spent $581 billion on the military. The next top countries were China ($129 billion), Saudi Arabia ($80 billion), Russia ($70 billion), and the UK ($61 billion). That means the US could have cut military spending by half and still be spending more than the next 3 top spending nations combined. How can you possibly justify that as not being excessive? Who do you think will be fighting that this level of spending is necessary?
so do the bare minimum? be better then the other countries by 1 point? what happens when you go down 2 points? you become lower, and neighboring countries with bad debaters have a chance to become better.
Did Daniel have to train? nope. He could have showed up at the tournament, hopped out if the ring 3 times and lost without being touched.
Daniel also did a lot of hard labor for Miyagi. was that going too far? Daniel instead could have made friends, and done better in school instead of learning to fight that good. what needs to happen Is the US needs to have a military that will win any war 100%. We have a super strong military, but against Russia or china it will need to grow. also we need to fight those who fight us. could you imagine Daniel not showing up to the tournament, but being trained and the best? I couldn't, but the US is doing this, they are not going full force on the enemy. so the enemy seeing how they won't get knocked down strikes.
except America isn't just training. they are spending trillions of dollars on things that will likely never be needed. instead they could feed the hungry. heal the sick. develop technology that could help save the world. I doubt the time that Daniel spends training could be spent saving millions and millions of lives. there is a point at which you are saying enough to discourage attack. you passed it a long time ago. now you are well into a stupid waste of money.
here is a few lines from the movie The Karate Kid. maybe you'll understand now.
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.
historybuff Miyagi have no hope for you.
you train, or build a strong military so you don't have to fight. unless you think Mr. Miyagi is wrong...
I don't think you understand why people have big powerful militaries.
1st. unless one makes a insanely stupid deal a big military prevents countries from making nuclear weapons. you see nuclear weapons don't pop out of thin air, they take time to make. in the making of these weapons a big military country will hopefully have high tech to see that nuclear weapons are being made, or at least suspect it. then the big military country says to the weaker country that may have nuclear weapons "if we find any evidence of you making nuclear weapons, or plans of making nuclear weapons, we will get our big powerful military to destroy you"
if a country had a small military they can't really say that can they?
2nd why must the only reason to have a military be to take over the world? Can they not build a strong military so nobody messes with them. let's say a terrorist group wants to make some terror. they are less likely to attack a strong military becoming stronger, then a strong military becoming weaker who shoes no sighns of destroying them. if the strong military says to the terrorists "you attack us, we bomb the hell out you" and mean it why would a terrorist attack?
as a side note you could reduce your military spending by 2/3 and still spend more than any other country on the planet. And considering most other top spenders are your own allies, those kinds of numbers are just ridiculous.
Even if you spent every last cent the American government makes, you could still potentially lose a war. every jet fighter in the world won't save you from a nuclear attack. At a certain point you are just wasting your money. America spends like a drunken sailor so they can feel safe.
In reality there is no country on the planet they can actually use all their toys on. The only time they can use them all would be a full out war with another large power. But since the fall of the soviet union there simply isn't one. America and its allies are by a massive margin more powerful than any other potential alliance. Increased military spending is just wasting your money.
my point still stands.
are you saying we go to a weaker military that could lose to save a few dollors?
you spend more on your military than the next 9 top spending countries. of those 9, 3 are NATO members and Japan and south Korea are close allies. Saudi Arabia is also supposedly an ally.
why on earth would you want to spend more money on an already rediculously bloated military budget?
(figures from the International Institute for Strategic Studies: world military balance 2015)
so then why does the US have planes older then the pilots?
shouldn't we step it up with military research? have 10 new planes instead of 20 old ones?
I agree. Brains and technology are far more important than muscles and numbers.
just to be clear this does not mean we should continue to reduce our military.