[brlewis]

>you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world

You are absolutely right. This statement is as true as saying you have to balance eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week against letting your children starve. Completely true. However, if you're currently eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week, the direction you need to go in toward balance is obvious.

Would you support reducing U.S. military spending from 2-3x that of China (the 2nd highest spender), to 1.5x?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

[ryanmercer]

>Would you support reducing U.S. military spending from 2-3x that of China (the 2nd highest spender), to 1.5x?

China is currently constructing 2 new aircraft carriers (they have 1) with as many as 3 more planned by 2030 based on intel out there.

From 2001-2006 they built at least a dozen new classes of ships, putting 60 more into the water.

They have at least 10 known new ships/subs coming online with some being constructed, some seeing sea trials and some being fitted out.

Etc.

My point is, China is very much building up their military

>China's military salary structure is similar to other countries’. In terms of salary level, China’s level is comparatively low. "For example, a U.S. colonel who has served in the military for 30 years will have a monthly salary of $10,000. However, the salary of a Chinese who has served in the military for 30 years is just 8,000 or 9,000 yuan,” said Zhang.

It's also worth noting China has state owned oil wells, state owned oil refineries, state owned natural gas companies, state owned fuel companies etc which all likely keeps their fuel costs artificially low.

I'm guessing they also don't provide things like the GI Bill to their military personnel and similar benefits that we give to our military personnel.

[brlewis]

> China is currently constructing 2 new aircraft carriers (they have 1)

Could this be in response to the U.S. having 11? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_U...

Two of which are in the Pacific now? https://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146

[ryanmercer]

>Could this be in response to the U.S. having 11?

Or could it be in response to them being very effective platforms for patrolling territorial waters and even providing cover for coastal regions? And because China has 9,010 miles of coast?

[zip1234]

I think the US military budget could be cut and still retain most of the capability. Ask a general which bases to cut and they will tell you stateside bases that are in expensive areas. The most useful bases are the ones that are overseas. The conflict of interest comes as congress is responsible for budgets and no senator or rep will ever willingly part with a base in their state.

[mc32]

If it were me, I think we need to be able to fend off the largest rivals convincingly.

If Russia and China were to enter the fold and be good world citizens and share a common vision and cooperate, then yeah. We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals.

[brlewis]

> We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals.

Ah, so you want to cut the U.S. military budget in half, then? I guess we're on the same page.

[hutzlibu]

" We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals. "

So eternal arms race then?

[mc32]

Nope, reciprocal disarmament.

[Macross8299]

Unviable from a game-theoretic standpoint. If someone chooses to break that reciprocity, what can you do about it now that you've disarmed? Literally nothing, you are in a weaker position than before.