Articles, Blog

If US Cut Military by 75%, Would Still Have Biggest Military

September 13, 2019

david beckham and shaft at david packard
dot com welcome back to the challan hydea everyone who’s watching from the
we survive bush he will survive obama face book page check that out i’ve got some incredible numbers to tell
you about if the united states cut military spending by seventy five
percent it would still have the largest military
in the world if you look at the numbers with the u_s_
spends about six hundred maybe two billion on the military in second place
is china with a hundred and sixty six billion russia ninety one billion the united kingdom sixty one billion
japan fifty nine billion france fifty eight billion saudi arabia fifty seven
billion a seventy five percent cut for the u_s_
would still have the u_s_ with the biggest military spending out if you say
will hold on a second david we need to have because we have so many
enemies and so many people would want to take
our freedom we need to have the biggest military not by a little bit we need to
have the biggest military bite by kind of a lot i said okay you could cut fifty percent and still have a bigger military then
the next three countries combined so we could tropic in half lewis take half the
military budget but it’s another things solve countless problems in this country
we would still have a bigger military than china russia and the u_k_ combined uh… and and then we would still
probably pretty safe wouldn’t lee yeah i’d reality you don’t really need a
military all you need is the most powerful weapons let’s say we want to be even more
conservative let’s cut third of the military we cut only if there have been military and we would
still have a bigger military within the next six countries combined that seems like we’d still be pretty
safe do you realize how much money we would we would be saying if we cut by
third of the military yes i do this is not the future the direction
we’re going in and by the way let’s add it you know all defense spending to this
and then we’ve got to staggering numbers this paradigm the time and where were
these this is the relationship in terms of military spending between the u_s_
and other countries i can’t imagine this will continue indefinitely you would think not i mean do you have
to also remember that since nine eleven we’ve doubled the military budget so
uh… even at that point it was already a lot larger than all other countries but what did we spend the money on i
mean we spent most of this money on two wars one of which one on much longer
than it should of and had sort of misplaced priorities and the other one
of which was completely illegitimate yeah so uh… i think what we need to do
is not only look at the military spending but also what we’re doing with
the military the money could be spent even for military reasons in much more
intelligent ways in addition to lowering the budget do you think lewis that those
who say we need this size military right if you had to say what’s the print the
at the prevailing actual deep down opinion amongst lawmakers and those in the military everybody
involved do you think that the idea that we
really need this size military to be safe is like the true honest conventional wisdom or is it that people
realize that we have so many business interest tied up in the military
industrial complex that this is what we want and we deem we’d be just as safe
saving you know thirty forty percent i think a lot of our own lawmakers are
probably blind to help and how much the military’s and how much
were spending on defense really yeah i do and uh… i think a lot of them think that what we
have in place right now is exactly what we need because we haven’t been uh… attacked uh… i think certainly there are some
politicians out there who are heavily influenced by the military industrial complex israel
and lobbyist yeah and i i think it goes both ways was remember ladies and
gentlemen we could cut seventy five percent of the military budget still
have the biggest military in the world good to have some some data


  • Reply modelmajorpita June 9, 2013 at 8:09 pm

    We could cut our military budget by quite a bit without actually shrinking the size of our military, our defense spending is full of waste.

    And yet, "conservatives" want to cut spending in areas that function with much less waste and benefit the economy and all Americans while expanding military waste.

  • Reply Crescent Star June 9, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    No no no. We can't cut military spending. They need their golden toilets in Iraq. How about we comprimise and reduce taxes and Social Security. That's a good middle ground, right?

  • Reply jtatsiue June 9, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    No matter how much sense this makes for the nation as a whole, it'll never happen per the wealth inequality that exits in America right now. The wealthiest politicians, individuals & corporations, vying for military contracts, profit from the military industrial complex & those interests control fiscal policy & congress. The rich think they don't need the rest of us, the one-tenth of 1% probably don't but the rest of the wealthy won't have a country to fleece or exploit much longer.

  • Reply hermenutic June 9, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    About this proposed defense cut. Have you forgotten that with the possible exception of England we have more enemies per capita than anyone else? This is not the time to cut defense it is the time to double or triple it.Unless this enemy story turns out to be a hoax. Then it would be okay.

  • Reply mars Cubed June 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    If USA cut military spending by 75%, perhaps it wouldn't need such a big military.
    ie, could invest big in alternative energy; even Helium 3 from the Moon.
    No need for a fleets in the Gulf, or national guards cleaning up environmental disasters.

    Could spend more on education, health, childcare: Real democracy where people get to build together, things they care about.
    USA as a jewel of reason and culture that shone so bright, it burned away all the petty bigotries & greed plaguing humanity.

  • Reply N0umenalReality June 9, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    cut it .. give it to NASA

  • Reply biggydx June 9, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    We're going to have to accept the fact that we now have a fourth branch of gov't: The Military Industrial Congressional Security Complex
    It is unaccountable, it gets what it wants, and unfortunately it belongs to a country of uninformed and easy-to-scare populace. Looking at it now, Obama may have went in with good intentions, but in reality it has become Obama vs the NSA, Pentagon, CIA, FBI, Congress, Corporate Media, Tabloids, and a large portion of the American Public.

  • Reply biggydx June 9, 2013 at 8:36 pm

    (Cont) Sure he could have done what a leader could do and buck the system, but against those odds, the political reality is that he have likely of never won the 2012 election had Benghazi still occurred. Need proof? Look at what happened to Kerry. Everyone would have said that, "You weakened our Defense, now look what happened!?" Indeed, it might have even exacerbated our security vs privacy problems. I feel like the unfortunate truth is that'll have to get much worse before it gets better.

  • Reply steveMCHS June 9, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    its amazing of how pathetic america is with there military spending

  • Reply biggydx June 9, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    (cont) That does not excuse Obama for not doing what he said he was going to, or making statements that he then flip flops on. Even if he lost the 2012 election, wasn't this the same man who said, "I'd much rather be an effective one-term president, than a complacent two-term president"?
    Even outside of Defense, this president has shown little leadership role, only doing so when its a conservative position. We should stop looking for Angels to put in office, as D.C. is too corrupted for that.

  • Reply Maltfalc June 9, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    these numbers are meaningless. the cost of a military is not the same thing as the size or effectiveness of that military.

  • Reply TylerNutify June 9, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    A few comments
    1. It's not the size or the amount we spend, but our military capabilities that are key.
    2. The #1 goal of the military should be deterrence = the most capable and best equipped.
    3. The biggest waste is Congress requiring that the DOD spend money on things they don't want in return for local jobs, votes, and money from the suppliers and contractors.
    4. Much of the world has become dependent on us for their security. That has to change

    It's not as simple as David's would like

  • Reply LastBref June 9, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    The 75% figure isn't too surprising considering that we already knew that the US spends as much on defense as the next 14 countries combined. And ultimately these data and facts are worthless. You can't reason with these tyrants. You can't just put well-reasoned, logical arguments out there and feel good about yourself like you accomplished something. What we need is less reasoning and more activism and radical thinking on the left. Get off your asses and MAKE shit change.

  • Reply LastBref June 9, 2013 at 9:26 pm

    The problem isn't that elected officials don't know what's going on, Louis. The problem is they're not scared of us.

  • Reply ushtemanushteunchaga June 9, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    Reenlistment bonuses. $40k to reup for a tech sgt. $300k+ for pediatricians. And if they reup overseas its tax free.

  • Reply Rockguitarnow June 9, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    As the story goes, in 1980s when Reagan was running for president, his people went behind the scene to cut a deal with the big defense contractors. Reagan will pour money in to those defense contractors, and in exchange they will donate some of their profits to the superstitious fundamentalist churches who will tell their followers they must vote Republican.

  • Reply BioCapsule June 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm

    It's not defence… it's business. Rome goes to war because it is their business, the only difference is that Rome don't spend much effort pretending they are not pillagers & plunderers.

  • Reply hermenutic June 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm

    I had an idea there might be a connection. I have a feeling if anyone broke down my door and began trashing the place and then started behaving worse it would have a negative effect on my attitude.

    Sounds like stinky shit to me now that you've explained it with such finesse. That's a good explanation I wonder if its true. It could pass for being true. That would mean they have human feelings like us. I remember being told they don't have feelings like us. He was a government employee. hmm

  • Reply Thurgor Supreme June 9, 2013 at 10:32 pm

    This is actually something Neo-liberals and Libertarians wholeheartedly see eye-to-eye on. The only difference is we would rather give that tax money back to the individual so they can empower themselves and their community through the efficiency of the free market instead of advocating for a different flavor of corrupt government contracting. It's okay though, you can continue believing that society would devolve into chaos without government around to babysit us.

  • Reply hermenutic June 9, 2013 at 10:37 pm

    I don't like to see people running around killing other people either. But you have to admit a lot of people find violence to be an all purpose tool for expressing ones innermost feelings. I bet if you took a poll you'd find almost everyone has violence in their toolbox. The progressives etc tend to resort to violence less than the rest, but violence is still a tool they have at their disposal and will use when necessary.

    I'm opposed to violence. I've seen people hurt by violence.

  • Reply GreatPirateSolomon June 9, 2013 at 10:45 pm

    I'd like to join the "I Hate it When I Wake Up in the Morning and It Seems Like George Bush is Still President" Facebook Page, and the "We Survived Bush and Obama" Facebook Page.

  • Reply hermenutic June 9, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    You can rob someone with a pistol and go to jail, rob them in a bank with a contract and you get a raise.

    Both are evidences of violence. Why is one rewarded and one punished? That is a conflicting set of social values don't you think?

  • Reply hermenutic June 9, 2013 at 11:22 pm

    Maybe we could banish them to England like England banished people to Australia. England is light years ahead in surveillance and should be able to handle the increase.

    If I understand it right they'll fit in with the banking crowd in England.. So that might not be a good idea, they could lose track of them there.

    Your idea is still pretty harsh. I insist if you take their clothes they be given a small tin cup to get back on their feet again.

  • Reply Caged June 9, 2013 at 11:37 pm

    I thought China's 4.5M was greater than the US's 2.2M.

  • Reply Caged June 9, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    North Korea has 9.5 million!

  • Reply Dsi1ver June 9, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    sounds legit

  • Reply Lost June 9, 2013 at 11:55 pm

    And Romney wanted to increase it by another $2 Trillion. What was he going to do, build his own Metal Gear!?

  • Reply d3nyd June 10, 2013 at 12:09 am

    Perhaps it means volunteer military? IIRC the Chinese armed forces are not by volunteer.

  • Reply rackley98052 June 10, 2013 at 12:13 am

    But the corporations need the money.

  • Reply HitchensImmortal June 10, 2013 at 12:24 am

    We already don't have the largest army in the world. You mean to say defense budget.

  • Reply MindEFX June 10, 2013 at 12:28 am

    Military budget cut mean profit cut for the Rich Corporations Greed who only know how to make money from government budgets.

  • Reply Thurgor Supreme June 10, 2013 at 12:51 am

    Good point. I guess we should let them steal from us and throw us into a police state. LOL, you people are ridiculous…

  • Reply OneRandomVictory June 10, 2013 at 1:18 am

    I brought this point up in my classroom last year. Everyone was in favor of lowering the budget.

  • Reply TylerNutify June 10, 2013 at 1:37 am

    I agree

  • Reply statikk666 June 10, 2013 at 2:01 am

    The US is just a huge military state, whilst your people starve.

  • Reply dangerouslytalented June 10, 2013 at 2:31 am

    Hell, if the US Army bought NO additional equipment, no tanks, planes, ships, and only bought things like food and fuel and paid the wages, the US Army would be STILL the best equipped in the world. Hell, the stuff they have stored in the deserts of Nevada are have enough gear to supply the US military over and over again. They spend and stockpile, spend and stockpile. It is like a hoarder storing newspapers.

  • Reply dangerouslytalented June 10, 2013 at 2:34 am

    If they are worried about military contractors going out of business, the US government can spend a good portion of the money they save on wind turbines (for which many aircraft companies could be contracted to supply the wings and nacelles) and putting in highspeed optical fibre (which the electronics manufacturers can provide) and other infrastructure programs that do similar things for other military contractors.

  • Reply SkyrimDude1 June 10, 2013 at 3:19 am


  • Reply PrincessTS01 June 10, 2013 at 4:10 am

    But is 10 or more gang up on us we would need all of it.

  • Reply atheistram June 10, 2013 at 4:47 am

    It pretty much would.

  • Reply Lobos222 June 10, 2013 at 5:29 am

    This is only in $.
    David is ignoring facts like:

    (A) USA is the only super power,which has benefits AND obligations if you want to have those benefits.
    (B) The West is more prospered than none western nations,comparably, so Western soldiers cost more.
    (C) Upper tech equals might.Upper tech costs more. Removing upper tech would lose you the edge you always need to have.
    (D) USA dose not have the largest army today if you counted soldiers in service.
    (E) Real cost isnt calculated (cost vs gain).

  • Reply Therrydicule June 10, 2013 at 6:24 am

    There is one factor that people forget: by cutting it in half, other countries might follow and also reduce their military spending. For instance, France spend a lot of money on some submarine program, just because the US now has some new technology that could detect some of French older submarine… If USA cut their budget, the French will reduce their by saying "what is this non-sense?" – the UK will probably follow, due to traditional risk factors being reduced. It's a complex feedback loop.

  • Reply whyamimrpink78 June 10, 2013 at 7:28 am

    Here is the problem with this argument. One, the US has to most to lose out of any other country. Another, we spend a lot of money trying to prevent violent conflicts. There will always be conflicts but as long as we stay civil then we are fine and that is how our military is approaching in solving our conflicts. And with the training a lot of people get in the military those people are worth a lot more in the private sector so the military is competing against that and must spend a lot of money

  • Reply Jack194343 June 10, 2013 at 7:37 am

    Thank God that bastard Romney lost the election.
    Do an Internet search:
    Romney wants to increase defense spending by $2 trillion. But what will he use it for?

  • Reply Jack194343 June 10, 2013 at 7:45 am

    To fight a bunch of ragheads hiding in caves and armed with AK-47s, we must have the most expensive, high tech military ever created in history. We need a military much greater than what we had in WWII against Germany, Italy, and Japan.

  • Reply brandnutopian June 10, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    That's quite a fatalistic and passive attitude for someone named "RevolutionIsMyName". And it's not about cleaning up after them, it's about caring for your fellow man, which is after all the only honorable reason for revolution. I'm not as extreme in my views as ah chu, but with wealth disparity at historic levels, it's obvious that this country's priorities are severely skewed towards selfish ends that benefit only the few.

  • Reply Mat Broomfield June 10, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    And yet Americans get angry with me when I accuse America of being insecure.
    The military overkill is a reflection of your personal commitment to hand weapons.

    Yet still terrorists blow up your buildings, murder your civilians, and kill your ambassadors.

    The real issue is not your ability to "defend" yourselves, but your policies on the world stage.

  • Reply createdeemcee June 10, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    US Military -1,429,995 , China Military= 2,285,000 Numbers need to be corrected Dave ; )

  • Reply whyamimrpink78 June 10, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    The rich don't need us, that is true. When you elect rich politicians to attack the rich investors they will develop an attitude of screw the middle class and just take their money where they are appreciated. Those politicians don't care because they are rich as well off.

  • Reply whyamimrpink78 June 10, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    Train more members to prevent more violence. Try to keep the best of the best in the military instead of losing them after 5 years to the private sector. After graduating from one of our academies and then doing their service time those people are worth a lot more in the private sector and will leave to earn more money.

  • Reply whyamimrpink78 June 10, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    Why do you think we have a wealth disparity that only the few benefit from?

  • Reply Thurgor Supreme June 10, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Right… I was never arguing that. By empowering the individual, we are more capable of helping our community and our fellow men (and women and children and elders). We don't need to steal from each other and create an over-bloated system of corrupt, bureaucratic bullshit that sells out to bankers and the corporate elite. Charity is held far more accountable than government and it's funding isn't based off of organized theft, rather it is voluntary exchange of good will.

  • Reply bluebull2006 June 10, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    America thinks all of the other countries are against them. #wasteo of tax money

  • Reply DoesNotCare June 10, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    We don't have the biggest military, but we have the most expensive.

  • Reply brandnutopian June 10, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Voluntary charity ain't gonna cut it. When you have huge American corporations like Apple hiding 100's of millions of dollars in offshore accounts to evade taxes and while simultaneously not giving ANY donations to charities (it's been several years since they've given a dime), it is the job of the government to provide for the general welfare.

    I can see you'll likely never agree with this, but then again a Libertarian will never be elected to president, so why should I care?

  • Reply Thurgor Supreme June 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Well if you want to support a system that forcibly removes power from the people and hands it off to banks and corporations and pretends to do us a service by giving back a fraction, that's your prerogative, but I'm going to continue to advocate not being stolen from so that we have the power to actually help each other.

  • Reply Olifantenstaart June 10, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    We need a big military because we face much greater threats than other countries… which military actions created in the first place.

  • Reply brandnutopian June 10, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    Apple already has plans to move assembly of iPhones and iPads to America, a fact which runs contrary to your assumptions about their aversion to taxes.

    I could argue with you all day about this, but I know it would make no difference to you and vice versa. We have very different outlooks on the roll of government and corporations, and frankly I don't see the point in expending energy for no reason.

  • Reply Nicky Jones June 10, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    the reason you have so many enemies is because your military is so big and is intruding on other countries land.

  • Reply Therrydicule June 10, 2013 at 11:06 pm

    It's a good thing. But it's still mean that the US will be able to cut more than what they were expected, and still stay at the same position…

  • Reply Thezuule June 11, 2013 at 2:12 am

    "larger than the next three countries combines." In the description. This should say combined.

  • Reply DaBigBouy June 11, 2013 at 2:43 am

    USA planning to take over the world with its military!!!!!

  • Reply AFlyingMexican5 June 11, 2013 at 4:02 am

    I read this fast and I am very sleepy so YAY?

  • Reply Therrydicule June 11, 2013 at 4:06 am


  • Reply Alanony blitz June 11, 2013 at 5:36 am

    We are Anonymous.

  • Reply No gambling e June 11, 2013 at 6:00 am

    you are so smart. Give this guy a medal!

  • Reply whyamimrpink78 June 11, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    Providing for the general welfare for the country could mean attracting businesses to create jobs in the US so people can make a living. Just taking money and giving it away on the basis of "general welfare" actually hurts the economy. You give away money which means money has no value anymore, something businesses don't like. When take away money as a tax then you scare away corporations like Apple. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, that is a problem.

  • Reply brandnutopian June 11, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    Most corporations don't pay half that percentage in taxes. It's a total misnomer to say we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
    The other fallacy is that we're giving anything away to people. We PAY INTO social security and medicare our entire working lives, that's why it's called an ENTITLEMENT, because we're ENTITLED to OUR MONEY. The solvency of both programs could be easily fixed by upping the individual tax rates slightly on the wealthy, which are not the highest in the world.

  • Reply Alex Kruise June 11, 2013 at 10:16 pm

    Most corporations do pay that high tax rate. There is a small percentage of big corporations with lobbyists protecting them from that rate. Also, social security is a Ponzi Scheme thats insolvency is built into its very nature. Your suggestion is to raise taxes on the rich. Higher taxes on the rich means less jobs, which means less people paying into social security, which in turn means the collapse of the scheme. Bernie Madoff and Charles Ponzi couldn't pull it off; the government won't either.

  • Reply brandnutopian June 11, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    Because the Bush Tax Cuts brought us so many jobs?

    In fact, with respect to GDP, consumption, investment, wage and salary, and employment growth, the 2001-2007 expansion was either the weakest or among the weakest since World War II.

    Moreover, the economy’s performance between 2001 and 2007 was weaker, overall, than its performance in the equivalent years of the 1990s, years following significant tax increases.

  • Reply AFlyingMexican5 June 11, 2013 at 11:31 pm


  • Reply ccmanize June 12, 2013 at 5:15 am

    The military will not be significantly slashed because so many politicians are taking bribes from private defense contractors. Of course the U.S. military doesn't need to be as big as it is. It would be fine at half it's size. But it's all about backroom bribes, not what's best for the taxpayer.

  • Reply whyamimrpink78 June 12, 2013 at 5:50 am

    If we get back money from SS and medicare then why pay to begin with? Taking money from the rich, people who actually invest money and give it value and giving it to people who produce nothing ruins the economy. You lower the value of the dollar. It is all supply and demand. I demand money so I work for someone for it. That dollar now has value. If I demand money and someone just gives it to me that dollar is worthless since the person giving it to me doesn't demand it……

  • Reply whyamimrpink78 June 12, 2013 at 5:51 am

    …..To much money means an increase in supply of it meaning it isn't worth much. Attacking the rich and giving money away ruins the economy.

  • Reply brandnutopian June 12, 2013 at 6:16 am

    No rebuttal to what I stated, so you just switch topics?

  • Reply johnsontsc June 12, 2013 at 6:20 am

    Douche bag!

  • Reply Alex Kruise June 12, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    There are plenty of other factors that lead to weaker then expected growth from 01-07. You can't possibly be inferring that higher taxes on the rich creates jobs. This is common sense; if you take money from a job creator, he will have less money to create jobs. To the point, unemployment will continue to rise, and less and less people will be paying into SS. The whole existence of SS is a stupid idea to begin with. You can make a better return investing in T-bonds. SS isn't even an investment.

  • Reply brandnutopian June 12, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    Lower corporate income tax rates increase labor costs. You see, businesses get tax deductions for all their expenses, including worker salaries. (Internal Revenue Code Section 162.) So, the cost of a worker to a corporation is their salary times 100% minus the corporate tax rate If the cost of a worker abroad is lower than the cost of a worker in the US, then the corporation will hire people in other countries rather than here.

  • Reply Mephistahpheles June 13, 2013 at 4:22 am

    The US would be a lot safer if it stopped creating enemies to justify military spending.

  • Reply sethneville June 13, 2013 at 6:44 am

    I don't know what figures he's citing here, but I want to point out what I feel is a relevant idea to keep in mind when discussing any "military expenditures". To whit: do those figures include money that we spend on military hardware or programs which we then give away or sell at a loss to other nations, or just what we spend on ourselves? Israel, South Korea and Pakistan immediately jump to mind. Not espousing a position for or against, just wondering if we included that money.

  • Reply Alex Kruise June 13, 2013 at 11:32 am

    What a bunch of nonsense. Lower taxes makes labor more expensive? Your comment is so completely inaccurate. You forget that corporate income is subject to double taxation. It's taxed when it is made, and it's taxed again when it's paid out to employees or shareholders. Precisely why so many companies pay low or no dividends. Also, The corporate tax rate is not 100% deductible from worker salaries. You need an accounting degree before you can attempt to have this debate with me.

  • Reply brandnutopian June 13, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    You need better reading comprehension skills, my friend.

    The historical record backs up my claim. Reagan and Clinton both raised taxes which in turn spurred growth and job creation. I'd be on board with a payroll tax holiday if that's what you're referring to as double taxation. There are workarounds with this, but without some sort of compromise nothing will get done in DC and this malaise will just continue.

  • Reply Alex Kruise June 13, 2013 at 9:34 pm

    You could never possibly ever attribute any productive job creation to higher taxes. Use some common sense, seriously. Reagan and Clinton also deregulated, but don't forget, higher taxes can create worthless public sector jobs, but those jobs are completely unproductive. Also, the smartest thing the government could do is abolish the corporate income tax because corporations aren't people, they don't pay the taxes; the employees and shareholders do.

  • Reply Indal June 16, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    China has the biggest military ūüôā

  • Reply machia0705 February 24, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    If these numbers are accurate, then we should keep the present budget or even increase it. You can not be the leader of the Free World by maintaining parity. Like it or not, it's a mean world. Look at the country who murdered 65 million of it's OWN people since 1945. It's know as China.

  • Reply joe biden February 25, 2014 at 12:00 am

    So spend more on space the country with the most space weapons would be the best and I would have my country convert all nuclear bombs into hydrogen bombs cause of the radiation,then you take your enemy's land,but nobody's ever going to need nuclear or hydrogen bombs unless Sombody figures out how to have sex at the speed of light cause that's how big the universe is.

  • Reply Chris R November 18, 2014 at 4:05 am

    compare each country's military spending to its GDP.  The US is a very wealthy country so we will have a very large military.  We spend around 3-4% of what our total GDP is.  compare that to every other country in the world.  It's not that big of a military when compared to GDP.

  • Leave a Reply