Cut to wheels on meals

Personally, I have no problem with the States being able to project force around the globe (well... hopefully not doing dumb stuff like Vietnam or Iraq). Of course, there's no indication the military needs additional 50 billion on top of 500 it gets now in order to do that. Especially at the expense of the State Department and needed domestic spending.

 

Then, I did not articulate my point it clearly. A defensive, withdrawn posture as strategy lacks the sufficient layers to provide long term survival of consistent attacks from organized military or partisan style warfare. A multi-layer, multi-prong approach allows for a better and often less costly strategy than withdrawing completely. Most of the OCONUS bases in my opinion are such prongs and layers.

What you are implying is offensive posture, attacking NK for example. I do not believe I have ever suggested that.

Let's presume there is no defensive US forces in SK. Do you believe NK would not take full advantage and over-run SK? That defensive set of forces are a layer outside of our territory as a direct and explicit deterrent to NK. And, China, and any other nation in Asia thinking of offensive ideas against US territories...

 

You know that when I wrote defensive posture, it refers to the posture of the military forces - nothing about "defensive U.S. forces".
I am also confident that you are aware I know South Korea is not part of the U.S.
furthermore, you also know that the defense of those countries are the prongs and layers as a defensive measure I described. We do not defend those countries on pure altruism.

I made no statements about other nation's defensive capabilities, empires, or costs.

You are simply playing with words, but not substance.

 

The most serious threat to the United States homeland is from within; look at what happened in London, just today.

 

Frankly, I'd rather live in American empire than in Chinese or Russian one. American imperialists are just as exceptionalist as the neocons, and keep forgetting USA is not the only country trying to project power beyond its borders.
In this particular case, Trump's vision of American empire entails boosting an already-huge military budget while making cuts to State Department and international aid. Chilling.

 

Let's bring in a more recent event.

Do you think that the loss of Crimean Peninsula, Donetsk, Luhansk & Kherson Oblast to the Russians by Ukraine is not a significant loss to the US security?

 

More of a loss for eastern European nations - so why de-emphasize NATO?

 

Just maybe it's because elements in this Administration are in Kremlin's pocket, incompetent, or both. Which may hurt American security more than one or fifty billion extra to Pentagon's budget can help it.

 

Well, how do you propose to make sure potential rivals and regional aspiring hegemons also compete solely on trade? When warfare, especially of a "hybrid" variety, may well be cheaper and more achievable in the short term? Eg., Russia is a weakling economically. While they can't dream to compete militarily as well, they can well mess up things in the short term, on many levels.
Of course, Trump refuses to be a credible deterrent to Russia... so it is not clear what exactly he plans to do with extra billions.

 

It is a source of significant concern for the European allies.

Also, I'm biased on this topic. A scene of Kremlin blowing up in "MI: Ghost Protocol" is a favourite of mine, and redeemed that whole pointless movie. Screw that guys.

 

Clearly our thoughts on what is and is not relevant to US security will not meet.

In my opinion, allowing Russia to run over Ukraine was a serious security mistake, and created a chink in our security strategy. US is already paying for this, and the consequences will be felt for a long time.

The strategy of prongs and layers as a strategic defensive posture holds.