RIP Europa lander mission:

meant to reply to

A singular threat. But Russia teamed up with Iran, China,North Korea, Philippines,Kazakhstan,Pakistan with possible (Somalia,Egypt, Libya) allies then we would have a real shitstorm on our hands.

Europe is too fucked to do anything every, Australia is too small to make a difference, Canada has no money, Japan would need to go into over drive and our one ally in Asia continent(India) might even not ally with us because they wouldn't be able to hold back china and russia being that close.

We need a military 10X stronger than anything else because we have to be ready to fight a alliance 10X bigger than us.

They cannot successfully invade the US. FOUR (possibly 5 depending on the state of Iran's program) nuclear powers teaming up to invade the US would be the height of insanity. What would any of these countries, especially China, stand to gain from trying to invade the US?

>tfw NATO would still be bigger even if the rest of the planet teamed up

how much bigger does our spending have to be?

They wouldn't need to invade the US, just it's allies.

Can you imagine Japan getting zerg'd by Russia and China?
Can you imagine South Korea getting RICED by China and North korea?
Can you imagine Saudi Arabia getting slammed from all sides (though they are useless say for the oil money)

America may never have an enemy combatant step foot on our soil but our allied nations would face near total annihilation.

why should I pay 30% of my paycheck to defend chinks and muslims?

China has no reason to go around invading these countries when it makes so much money trading with them. The only country that might actually invade someone is Russia, because Putin's legitimacy is derived from geopolitical victories. But they aren't stupid enough to invade someone and dare the US to nuke them (I hope).

because if we had no allies our defense spending would have to jump to something like 50%-80% of the GDP.

Something people forget is even trading partners have wars. Countries throughout Europe in the past would war with each other despite other European nations being big trade partners.
India and Pakistan are big trade partners but they are willing to go to war in a heart beat.

Besides China hasn't been playing fair internationally anyway by artificially lowering their currency to make their prices more competitive. A trade war between china and America is inevitable at this point.

I just wish the US did more before china became a problem. Like have factories in Mexico or Nepal or Philippines instead.

Because you already pay roughly 30% of your money on their tech and oil.

>A trade war between china and America is inevitable at this point.
Only because the US is stupid enough to start one. There is no real reason for the US to start a trade war with China, except that Trump needs to deliver blue-collar factory jobs to his base to make them happy. Guess what, the CPC has to do this too in order to maintain legitimacy and deliver growth, and Chinese government upheavals tend to be a fucking shit show. A trade war with China could rapidly turn into an actual war. There has to be a better way to get stupid people working again in the US that doesn't involve a war with China.

>This is what libertarians actually believe

>Only because the US is stupid enough to start one
The trade war was already happening for the past 10 years. Thing was Obama and Bush was turning a blind eye to it.
China has committed countless acts of espionage, financial sabotage along with hacking and breaching,etc.

The funny thing is though user, China is going to lose this war simply because of it's middle class. China is getting too expensive and smaller countries are getting cheaper, wanting in on the gravy train.

Along with cheaper nations, Automation is making those slave factories obsolete. Not only that, as the American economy shrinks, so does the Chinese market. Since there are less people buying.

Other way around. The US would spend less on defence if they weren't single-handedly propping up NATO.

tell that to europe everytime we say we're going to stop protecting them.

Maybe they should start paying for more of their own defense (This is one of the few non-stupid things Trump has said)

they literally can't. they spent all their money on free healthcare/education and gibsmedats for immigrants.

too bad that that isnt my problem

There is so several things wrong with this.
The idea of those countries teaming up is laughable. Two of those are US Allies (Egypt and the Philippines, Pakistan is too technically but I wouldn't count on them), Of the rest two of those are failed states (Libya and Somalia) and at this point even China is getting tired of North Korea's shit. Of the countries you listed only China and Russia pose a real threat to the US, and I really doubt you'd get them to team up.

You're right about Europe being fucked, and Australia not making much of a difference but you are severely underestimating the JSDF, and have ignored the existence of S. Korea. India is not our "one ally" on the Asian continent. I'd also think you'd be hard pressed to call them an ally. They'd probably sit out of any major war involving the US.

As for needing to fight an "alliance 10X bigger than us" I'm actually unsure if you could put together such a force, much less be able to deliver that force to US Soil.

I mean I'm all for a strong defense budget but this line of thinking is retarded. Our problem right now is not money it's spending the money correctly and strengthening areas we've weakened on rather than paying thousands of dollars for trash cans and mindlessly buying obsolete tanks because mai jerbs.

Good.

I don't fucking think so.

China has been in a trade war with the US for decades now you buffoon.

how is it a trade war? The US has basically decided that it no longer values manufacturing and is uninterested in competing with China on this front. As far as I know, China still has Most Favored Nation status. Reverse engineering products does not count as a trade war.

what about tracking serial killers who cross State lines?

This could also be argued to be a form of (domestic) national defense-just wrapping up police and military functions all in one larger category-burrito, but I'm not going to push the issue and support the other user, because his premise is flawed inasmuch as basic infrastructure is held to be a distinct category from "national defense", though again the two could be conflated if one is so inclined.

Even most conservatives expect their government and their tax dollars to maintain their roads. That's why it's fairly easy for both (American) sides to come together on things like infrastructure, even now.

It's 2017 and there's zero need for military. ZERO. Put that through your thick conservative heads and the world might just start moving on the right track.

Why would we? We got American taxpayers funding that. I'd rather keep my free university and free healthcare.

NASA benefits from DARPA projects, and vice versa.

Actually the use of the military is for the protecting of private interests that the government has: Territories, security of allies from hostile nations, and resources.

We do need the military. , Is god damn retarded.
>Philippines
>Libya
Is literally on the US dick, Chin and Russia cannot project power to threaten the continental United States.

Pakistan, Kazakhastan, North Korea, Somalia, Iran Egypt literally not threats even when allied with Russia or China. You should be more scared of an invasion in the southern US by the Mexican Army or Cuban Army then these irrelevent powers.

Wait, i thought Trump would make America, space, NASA, everything, great again?

For the longest time the USA didn't even have a standing military.