He's adamant about building our military 'back up'

He's adamant about building our military 'back up'

What does this actually mean? Is he going to require all persons from 18-25 to serve like in switzerland/russia for example? or just expand military bases again?

I don't know.
What do you think should happen to the American military?

It means you lazyass NEETS will be forced to serve.

It probably has to do with upgrading infrastructure and logistics.

It's certainly a tough thing to do. Last time we tried major overhauls(mostly computerization of what was formerly all paper), it went massively over budget and spiralled into insanity.

Like, for all the bases we build and troops we send out, all our local shit is rotting away and is growing obsolete in the face of growing powers who are catching up, and will have the benefit of weapons and systems that may still be inferior, but are newer, and less prone to breaking down due to age.

He'd look a lot better with natural hair and skin.

Hes gonna bump up spending up to 4 % of the gdp again

He looks more based here. Like some old cunt with a porch and a bloodhound telling you to get off his land.

He wants to start charging rent on overseas military bases, because he thinks it's a benefit to them and not to the us because in trumpland, security is zero sum

so that will mean an end to us military hegemony

>What does this actually mean?
Updating weapons and military equipment so it is on par with Russia. Do a google search for "Satan 2 rocket." Russia has outplayed us in their nuclear arsenal. That means that they have an advantage in trade and policy negotiations. Trump wants to even the playing field as far as the amount of power that America can bring to a negotiation.
>Is he going to require all persons from 18-25 to serve like in switzerland/russia for example?
Not what he's talking about.
>or just expand military bases again?
He doesn't seem to want to build up military presence overseas unless the countries whose borders we are stationed in are paying us enough to protect them. It's mostly about equipment and technology.

we have been locked into contracts going back decades that are absolutely meaningless and only serve to enrich hillarys friends

ever wondered why we never got a moon base?

My last year in the military there were like two months where we couldn't train properly because of sudden budget cuts. Military wastes an outrageous amount of money on stupid shit and then can't afford like 2 grand for ammo so we can all do some training. Most guys probably would have just brought their own but nah, we'll just run around yelling bang bang and using other notional gear and supplies like a bunch of third world savages.

Do you even know what "zero sum game" means? I swear, this is the most over-used meme in conversations with leftists. The reason leftists know about it is because their concept of wealth redistribution is based on zero sum economics - the idea that wealth can't be created, only stolen or redistributed - and that's stupid because it is possible to create wealth.

International security is a complex subject. Withdrawing US troops from Germany doesn't have to make Western Europe less safe. Germany has their own military, and the only reason they don't build up their own defenses is because they have been able to leech off the US military presence, which they always know will be nearby, willing to die for them.

Better everything and more of everything. Peace through strength. Great White Fleet - look it up.

Looks like Caesar

>sent to military school for being a punk
>flat foot draft dodger

fuck this pudgy fuck

that's the other lad

You do realize that most of those military bases are in countries with existing agreements with the US (such as almost every NATO country) that say they should be providing more for defense than they are?

Imagine a world where countries are held accountable to the deals they make. Horrifying.

maybe he'll let personnel on army bases to be armed

it means getting the fuck out of all these countries we're in, defunding nato, and using that money to literally build up our military. ships, jets, tanks, research and development.

it means they won't get rid of commisaries and stop paying enlisted, shit sallary and feeding airmen expired milk

Probably stop wasting money on shitty projects. Build reliable workhorses again.

Actually the concept of zero sum is appropriate and adapted to international security. There's very little agreement among different theories of IS, but realists and neorealists both agree that the security dilemma exists, the idea that if State A increases its security, State B feels less secure relative to it, (so State B increases its security, which makes State A feel less secure, so increasing security paradoxically ends up decreasing your security, but that's a different issue). So if you're increasing your security, some people think that makes other states less secure.

I don't think that's the case. But that's the logic that considers the US gets no benefit out of having theatre missile defence systems in Poland, that's the logic that says Poland is free riding off of american militarism. Well Poland may well be free riding, but America sure does get a lot of benefit out of it, they expand their sphere of influence, the bring their security partnerships closer together, and they aren't making themselves less secure precisely because I don't think security is zero sum.
>almost every NATO country
I mean, all NATO countries are parties to the NAT, so they'd all have agreements with the US. I wasn't aware the north atlantic treaty had a provision condemning non-US states for their contributions. Are you talking about a bilateral treaty?

The only less-than-multilateral treaty whose provisions I know off the top of the ol' dome is ANZUS, which doesn't commit any parties to do anything other than "render assistance", which could feasibly be satisfied by sending nothing more than a first aid kit

>a weapon literally PROPOSED literally 2 days ago
>like obama wouldn't have done the same shit if he had more time in office.
>a nuclear weapon is that easy to develop
and to top it all off
>they have an advantage in trade and policy negations
nigga what drugs are you on

because america totally needs MORE money in the defense budget. holy shit youre fucking stupid.

he probs just means give more money to israel like the cuck that he is.

tfw criticize troops that actually served

>be a draft dodger
>gg

>I don't think security is zero sum
Then you're wrong :).

I think Trump is an idiot for abandoning US strategic commitments overseas precisely because security is zero-sum. The US cannot be secure in an insecure world, so a commitment to global stability is required for the US to have national security. By pursuing its interests overseas the US can exert control on the security of other nations, allowing it to not only strengthen itself but to weaken others.

What I'm talking about with NATO is that every country is expected to contribute 2% of their GDP to NATO defense. The US exceeds that requirement at 3.62%, while the only other NATO countries that even meet the requirement are Greece, Poland, Estonia, and the UK (with contributions greater to lesser in that order).

That means that everyone else takes advantage of the US spending, and to a lesser extent the spending of the other countries actually paying their share. Germany is only spending 1.18% of their GDP on defense, for example, but there are US bases all over Germany that defend them anyway.

It's not unreasonable to expect that if these countries won't provide for their own share of the common defense they should pay the country defending them.

means flag-waving and more spending.
it's not important, except its adding to our debt, but literally everyone else is gonna spend just as much, and at least this way the money goes to building useful weapons and paying athletic white men both for work and service, rather than going to a bunch of homeless drug-addict niggers.

Eventually the debt is gonna blow us all up though, so as soon as we patch up our borders, deport all the spics, and nuke ISIS, we need to cut almost all spending.

What would Europe need to defend itself against without NATO creep against Russia and the near constant destabilisation of the Middle East by the US and Israel?

Good question.

He's gonna make a new navy and kick the shit out of Central America just like he did in his previous life

They are turning people away and have been downsizing a lot. PLENTY of people want to be in the military.

The whole military industrial complex is such an crony capitalist clusterfuck i think anything trump does with it will be better then what it is.

Refugees wouldn't exist without the destabilisation.

yes, like most govt. related things

but it's like the movie the untouchables

everyone knows where the corruption is

it's just a matter if you're prepared to go after it or not

Yeah, Jews and (((foreign interests))) and (((special interest groups))).

Tfw Trump and Hillary are both owned by other countries. Tfw no Trump supporter can reason this away and they never talk about it. If you support Trump you're a Jew lover end of story.

you're a child or childlike

bye now

Each other.
Terrorism.
Russia slowly retaking the former soviet space.
The rise of China.

But mostly each other, notice there hasnt been war between NATO/EU member states since NATO/the EU was formed, hard to go to war when your security alliances are one and the same and your economies are tethered to each other.