> A reduction in readiness and force projection, but not sufficient enough of a reduction to put American soil in danger.

And your qualifications for making that assessment would be?

> Other countries spend orders of magnitude less than the US on their military, and remain conflict free.

Those "other countries" are, in almost every case, under the defense umbrella of a country that does have an adequate military.

Unless you have countervailing qualifications —- in which case you should talk more about them so we can ask good questions of you —- it’s unhelpful to bring qualifications into the argument.

Nope, it doesn't work that way.

The military budget is set by those who actually do have expertise in the area, not me. I don't need to show expertise to accept the judgment of experts. The OP is disputing those experts, and thus does need to show expertise.

I admit I am not qualified to make my statement with authority, it’s simply my opinion. I’d be most appreciative if someone with significant military management experience weighs in.

So you think we should gamble the national security of the entire nation based on your (unqualified) opinion?

Do you seriously not see the problem with that?

I don’t see the problem with having the discussion. The US military is a disgustingly wasteful (pallets of cash in the desert “go missing”! [1]) organization that has squandered trillions of dollars. Dollars that could’ve been spent on something useful. It’s time for accountability and responsibility.

Do you seriously not see the problem with not questioning that? We can’t afford universal education and healthcare, but we can afford aircraft carriers that are obsolete for force projection (inexpensive surface cruise missiles from China) and F35s that can’t fly, kill their pilots, and are generally speaking not fit for purpose? [2].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

[2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/military-admits-billion-dollar...

>We can’t afford universal education and healthcare

Countries can exist without universal education and health care.

They cannot exist without national defense (whether provided on their own or through an ally). Sorry, that is simply a fact.

Also, national defense is a clearly enumerated function of the federal government per the Constitution. Neither of the other two is.

I never said no military. I said a reduction in spending. We overspend and egregiously waste on ours. That’s my point. Good chat.