2 votes

What Do You Think Defense Speding Should Cover?

Hypothetical situation. If you were to become president (I think I can safely assume most here want to cut the military) what would you do to the military?

Ron Paul argues about cutting the "military spending" and making it the "defense spending" that it should be. What do you think would be covered in the defense spending? I think that most would say first to shut down our bases across the world but what else?

Here are a couple of questions I can think of:

-What would happen to our carrier groups?
-Would you continue the Joint Strike Fighter?
-Would you develop new "next generation bombers" and also some of the newer ground vehicles to replace the aging Humvee?
-Would you take all of the forces across the globe and build new bases for them in America?

I think it would be cool to see some of the answers here and if you have other idea's please feel free to share them!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
egapele's picture

Ron Paul is actually the best on national defense

budgeting (especially supporting the troops) than any other candidate that has run this election. That is why he has the most support from active military. As for military spending (overseas war & overseas bases) it needs to be cut drastically, if not completely. He's all for decentralizing our homeland bases, as it should be.

Defense, not entangling alliances!

Get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan.... etc, etc.
Close at least 890 bases world wide, if not all of them. One base at a time. We are not the police of the world. Let other countries cough up the cash for their own defense. We are hated almost world wide because we can't keep our noses out of other country's affairs.

Formerly rprevolutionist

Taking out THE ROTHSCHILDS and Rockefellers.


We should be dropping bombs on Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan, The Rothschilds and the Rockefeller -- not on impoverished, third-world nations (Oil-rich), with no serious military.


Which defense? National or International ?

Remember the both are different and get there own budget. Military spending will be cut drasticly from pulling out of countries but still employing the military. Remember we will need our military here to back us up when Paul is president. They will have to catch all these crooks for us.

Re-open Closed Military Bases

Military bases closed under Bush (or since) need to be reopened. This relates to a comment I made elsewhere on the DP re "decentralization." http://www.dailypaul.com/231336/senator-fukushima-fuel-pool-...

For a quick overview, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure.
Also "Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)" http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm

We also need to relocate at least parts of some facilities along the eastern seaboard based on NOAA's estimates of sea-level rise. The agency reported on the subject after Hurricane Katrina. http://csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slrviewer/

Um...I only mean if Ron Paul is president. The idea has to do with national security, not martial law.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Nonsense!


We have way too many Military Bases, not too few. In fact, we have 900 Military Bases sprawled all over the World.

No other nation on the planet does this, needs this, or condemns its own people to have to pay for this.


Well, I think the only

Well, I think the only exception is local military bases, in our borders(I remember at the SC debate Paul mentioned that as a potential boost for jobs while still serving National DEFENSE(not 'offense' and 'intervention' like bases across the world do).

I think the only thing Paul wants outside the US in the way of having a presence is embassies for basic diplomatic actions and communication.

Not nonsense! Decentralization Key To National Security

Thank you. This is certainly what I meant, local bases. Our military bases were consolidated to save money, i.e., capitalizing on "efficiency of scale." That's a poor priority where national defense is concerned. DECENTRALIZATION, not centralization, is the key to our national security, re the military and otherwise.

While that is my primary reason, secondarily, cities and towns grew up around military bases. The closing of so many bases in SOME states badly hurt them - all such towns but especially those in rural areas; whereas their relocation to OTHER states gave those states a nice economic boost! Hmm. Wonder how they decided which states to weaken and which states to strengthen.

Closed Military Bases: Socio-Economic Impacts http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22147.pdf

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/17/military-base-closure...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I like what Paul said in that

I like what Paul said in that one debate, about NASA funding being more focused on outside the atmosphere technology for defense measures, I would say more technological advancement all around would be best! But if I had it my way, instead of wars I think we should have pay-per-view thunderdome fights between nations leaders! haha

Beep beep boop beep... I am a Paulbot... prepare for liberty and prosperity!

Hmm.

Excellent question. Well, we do have new toys to play with. I think we would first close down all the bases in europe and japan but not south korea. Not unless they pay the US to stay there. I think some of the troops could be put on the south of the border to stop the cartels from coming to our side. We would probably have to downsize. It's just my take.