ConspiracyThe United States Military Industrial ComplexPosted:

Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 11, 20116 Year Member
Posts: 726
Reputation Power: 29
The US Spends nearly 600 Billion in Military Defense. But it attacks, invades and dictates countries who are TINY. Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghan...

The US Military spends more than the next 20 Countries combined. Why?

They want global power and control of the world. The US has military bases all over the world. Except in North Korea and Iran. The 2 countries, coincidentally, they've been TARGETING so hard lately.

Also, those two countries, are the ONLY two countries left on the face of earth who do NOT have the Rockefeller/Rothschilds Central banks...

Why do you think the US spends so much on the Military?
#2. Posted:
2018
  • E3 2016
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 30, 20143 Year Member
Posts: 3,808
Reputation Power: 219
Motto: Boobs
Because.. 'Murica

#3. Posted:
KyloCrux
  • E3 2017
Status: Online
Joined: Oct 17, 20134 Year Member
Posts: 10,256
Reputation Power: 644
America has to control the countries because without America; the world would be at war with each other still. I strongly think that too. I feel if America didn't control as much as they did wars would be broken out everywhere.
#4. Posted:
Timezone
  • Download Master
Status: Online
Joined: Jul 09, 20143 Year Member
Posts: 1,887
Reputation Power: 416
Motto: Next Goal: Tutorial Master
I'm a Canadian speaking on this.

Let's see the United States came out of WWII basically intact, unlike most of the industrial world.

There industrial centers were not bombed into oblivion, so they were in a good post-war position to be the political, military and economic counter to the rising Soviet empire.

The problem of Communism requires a military sufficiently strong to dissuade communist aggression. Not to defeat it directly, but to make it obviously futile or counter-productive, so that it would not expand into more and more theaters of potential conflict.

That leads to the third factor. The US building a massive, global defense system allowed other countries to reduce their own defense budgets.

This was good, to the extent that it limited regional volatility, but it also meant that a significant reduction in the US defense capacity could create a power vacuum that our allies were not entirely capable of filling.

Think of it like your local police. Without a central police force, everybody would be directly responsible for their own protection. That would mean a lot of guns, a lot of paranoia and probably some warlords. The existence of a police force reduces the likelihood of that potentially volatile situation.

If the US didn't have a massive military, other countries would have to build up their own militaries, making regional conflicts and even world wars more likely.
#5. Posted:
Lug
  • Ninja
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 29, 2017
Posts: 604
Reputation Power: 132
Motto: I'm an ancient Celtic god.
The US basically baby sits the rest of the globe. Without the US we'd be in WWX by now. Just my opinion. Biwwy made a better point and actually explained it, I'm just putting what he said in baby terms.
#6. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 20125 Year Member
Posts: 3,634
Reputation Power: 232
Motto: If writings about the nature of reality don't unsettle and disturb you then they aren't doing it right.
Biwwy wroteI'm a Canadian speaking on this.

Let's see the United States came out of WWII basically intact, unlike most of the industrial world.

There industrial centers were not bombed into oblivion, so they were in a good post-war position to be the political, military and economic counter to the rising Soviet empire.

The problem of Communism requires a military sufficiently strong to dissuade communist aggression. Not to defeat it directly, but to make it obviously futile or counter-productive, so that it would not expand into more and more theaters of potential conflict.

That leads to the third factor. The US building a massive, global defense system allowed other countries to reduce their own defense budgets.

This was good, to the extent that it limited regional volatility, but it also meant that a significant reduction in the US defense capacity could create a power vacuum that our allies were not entirely capable of filling.

Think of it like your local police. Without a central police force, everybody would be directly responsible for their own protection. That would mean a lot of guns, a lot of paranoia and probably some warlords. The existence of a police force reduces the likelihood of that potentially volatile situation.

If the US didn't have a massive military, other countries would have to build up their own militaries, making regional conflicts and even world wars more likely.


REDDITGUY wroteFirst, the US came out of WWII relatively intact. Unlike most of the rest of the developed industrial world, we did not have a major war fought right on top of us. Our industrial centers were not bombed into oblivion, so we were in a good post-war position to be the political, military and economic counter to the rising Soviet empire.

Second, the problem of communism - which, remember, was determined to "defeat" capitalism - required a military sufficiently strong to dissuade communist aggression. Not to defeat it directly, but to make it obviously futile or counter-productive, so that it would not expand into more and more theaters of potential conflict. However, the Cold War policy of containment would not work if it was just the US defending itself. It would be like trying to deal with an ant infestation with only enough pesticide for one room. So we needed a bigger military to not only extend the umbrella, but also to persuade potential allies to back our play.

That leads to the third factor. The US building a massive, global defense system allowed other countries to reduce their own defense budgets. This was good, to the extent that it limited regional volatility, but it also meant that a significant reduction in the US defense capacity could create a power vacuum that our allies were not entirely capable of filling. If the US substantially drew down the defense umbrella, a lot of countries would feel the need to ramp up their own defense spending. This makes it a lot more likely that previously-containable conflicts could blow up into all-out wars.

Think of it like your local police. Without a central police force, everybody would be directly responsible for their own protection. That would mean a lot of guns, a lot of paranoia and probably some warlords. The existence of a police force reduces the likelihood of that potentially volatile situation.

TL;DR: If the US didn't have a massive military, other countries would have to build up their own militaries, making regional conflicts and even world wars more likely.


[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
#7. Posted:
Skates
  • Winner!
Status: Offline
Joined: May 12, 20152 Year Member
Posts: 10,879
Reputation Power: 54
ProfessorNobody wrote
Biwwy wroteI'm a Canadian speaking on this.

Let's see the United States came out of WWII basically intact, unlike most of the industrial world.

There industrial centers were not bombed into oblivion, so they were in a good post-war position to be the political, military and economic counter to the rising Soviet empire.

The problem of Communism requires a military sufficiently strong to dissuade communist aggression. Not to defeat it directly, but to make it obviously futile or counter-productive, so that it would not expand into more and more theaters of potential conflict.

That leads to the third factor. The US building a massive, global defense system allowed other countries to reduce their own defense budgets.

This was good, to the extent that it limited regional volatility, but it also meant that a significant reduction in the US defense capacity could create a power vacuum that our allies were not entirely capable of filling.

Think of it like your local police. Without a central police force, everybody would be directly responsible for their own protection. That would mean a lot of guns, a lot of paranoia and probably some warlords. The existence of a police force reduces the likelihood of that potentially volatile situation.

If the US didn't have a massive military, other countries would have to build up their own militaries, making regional conflicts and even world wars more likely.


REDDITGUY wroteFirst, the US came out of WWII relatively intact. Unlike most of the rest of the developed industrial world, we did not have a major war fought right on top of us. Our industrial centers were not bombed into oblivion, so we were in a good post-war position to be the political, military and economic counter to the rising Soviet empire.

Second, the problem of communism - which, remember, was determined to "defeat" capitalism - required a military sufficiently strong to dissuade communist aggression. Not to defeat it directly, but to make it obviously futile or counter-productive, so that it would not expand into more and more theaters of potential conflict. However, the Cold War policy of containment would not work if it was just the US defending itself. It would be like trying to deal with an ant infestation with only enough pesticide for one room. So we needed a bigger military to not only extend the umbrella, but also to persuade potential allies to back our play.

That leads to the third factor. The US building a massive, global defense system allowed other countries to reduce their own defense budgets. This was good, to the extent that it limited regional volatility, but it also meant that a significant reduction in the US defense capacity could create a power vacuum that our allies were not entirely capable of filling. If the US substantially drew down the defense umbrella, a lot of countries would feel the need to ramp up their own defense spending. This makes it a lot more likely that previously-containable conflicts could blow up into all-out wars.

Think of it like your local police. Without a central police force, everybody would be directly responsible for their own protection. That would mean a lot of guns, a lot of paranoia and probably some warlords. The existence of a police force reduces the likelihood of that potentially volatile situation.

TL;DR: If the US didn't have a massive military, other countries would have to build up their own militaries, making regional conflicts and even world wars more likely.


[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]


inb4 he says thats him on reddit
#8. Posted:
Timezone
  • Download Master
Status: Online
Joined: Jul 09, 20143 Year Member
Posts: 1,887
Reputation Power: 416
Motto: Next Goal: Tutorial Master
Skates wrote
ProfessorNobody wrote
Biwwy wroteI'm a Canadian speaking on this.

Let's see the United States came out of WWII basically intact, unlike most of the industrial world.

There industrial centers were not bombed into oblivion, so they were in a good post-war position to be the political, military and economic counter to the rising Soviet empire.

The problem of Communism requires a military sufficiently strong to dissuade communist aggression. Not to defeat it directly, but to make it obviously futile or counter-productive, so that it would not expand into more and more theaters of potential conflict.

That leads to the third factor. The US building a massive, global defense system allowed other countries to reduce their own defense budgets.

This was good, to the extent that it limited regional volatility, but it also meant that a significant reduction in the US defense capacity could create a power vacuum that our allies were not entirely capable of filling.

Think of it like your local police. Without a central police force, everybody would be directly responsible for their own protection. That would mean a lot of guns, a lot of paranoia and probably some warlords. The existence of a police force reduces the likelihood of that potentially volatile situation.

If the US didn't have a massive military, other countries would have to build up their own militaries, making regional conflicts and even world wars more likely.


REDDITGUY wroteFirst, the US came out of WWII relatively intact. Unlike most of the rest of the developed industrial world, we did not have a major war fought right on top of us. Our industrial centers were not bombed into oblivion, so we were in a good post-war position to be the political, military and economic counter to the rising Soviet empire.

Second, the problem of communism - which, remember, was determined to "defeat" capitalism - required a military sufficiently strong to dissuade communist aggression. Not to defeat it directly, but to make it obviously futile or counter-productive, so that it would not expand into more and more theaters of potential conflict. However, the Cold War policy of containment would not work if it was just the US defending itself. It would be like trying to deal with an ant infestation with only enough pesticide for one room. So we needed a bigger military to not only extend the umbrella, but also to persuade potential allies to back our play.

That leads to the third factor. The US building a massive, global defense system allowed other countries to reduce their own defense budgets. This was good, to the extent that it limited regional volatility, but it also meant that a significant reduction in the US defense capacity could create a power vacuum that our allies were not entirely capable of filling. If the US substantially drew down the defense umbrella, a lot of countries would feel the need to ramp up their own defense spending. This makes it a lot more likely that previously-containable conflicts could blow up into all-out wars.

Think of it like your local police. Without a central police force, everybody would be directly responsible for their own protection. That would mean a lot of guns, a lot of paranoia and probably some warlords. The existence of a police force reduces the likelihood of that potentially volatile situation.

TL;DR: If the US didn't have a massive military, other countries would have to build up their own militaries, making regional conflicts and even world wars more likely.


[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]


inb4 he says thats him on reddit


Nah. That ain't me
#9. Posted:
Mike
  • Winter 2016
Status: Online
Joined: Oct 12, 20161 Year Member
Posts: 2,975
Reputation Power: 186
Motto: {Modding Is A Passion} HMU To Buy Mods GTA - WW2 { All Cods / All Console}
Well Aint Nobody gonna try us now
Users browsing this topic: None
Jump to:


RECENT POSTS

HOT TOPICS