The US doesn't do that though. The US military didn't stop the whole middle east thing from starting. It didn't stop Afghanistan. It didn't stop the Russian "invasion" of Crimea. It didn't stop the Vietnamese war. It didn't stop the Argentinian attack on the Falklands. It didn't stop the Korean war. So much for that "security force".

Besides, if spending = strength as you seem to think then places like the EU don't even need the US anyway since the UK and France together outspend Russia and that's without the other 50 odd EU countries chipping in. So not only have you been useless in defending Europe (and the rest of the world) anyway, you're not even needed. Besides, what kind of messed up logic do you need to think that Russia or China are suddenly going to become Nazi Germany and try and conquer the world if the US lower their military budget, because it sounds like that's what you're saying, while the reality is it wouldn't really change a thing for either of those countries (or the countries near them).

1. That insane military budget isn't working very well then if despite spending all that money that's happened to the US but not any other country.

2. Depends on the terrorist group. The only group I can think of that has used one of those (nerve gas specifically) was in the Tokyo sarin gas attack, so not a US city. Although assuming you're talking solely about islamic terrorists then cities in some of those other 7 countries would be just as attractive as any US city (Paris and London for example).

Besides, in my experience dealing with terrorists and counter-terrorism operations is typically a police rather than military matter. So how exactly are a bunch of rockets, tanks and fighter jets going to help the police do their job?

You have to consider the role the US military. It functions as a security force for all of North America, South Korea, Japan, EU, etc. It's easy to be snarky about US defense spending when your own country doesn't have to spend much due to the US protecting your shit and maintaining world peace.

Thank you.

The USA defense budget was already beyond insane before this vote...

People often forget, or don't commonly mention, that even though Republicans are the main offenders of taking large corporate donations, there are plenty of Democrats that do the same.

I fail to see why USA's defense budget needs to be that much higher than the top 7 closest countries combined.
Need to vote all these people out.

The USA defense budget was already beyond insane before this vote...

People often forget, or don't commonly mention, that even though Republicans are the main offenders of taking large corporate donations, there are plenty of Democrats that do the same.

I fail to see why USA's defense budget needs to be that much higher than the top 7 closest countries combined.
Need to vote all these people out.

In the last election, Hillary Clinton became the poster child for taking large corporate donations. She had so much money in her arsenal to the point where at one time, she was outspending Donald Trump on campaigning ten times over. She had the backing of the big banks. She had the backing of the Saudi Royal Family. She was supported by the mainstream media outlets. That's why she really didn't campaign that hard despite somehow spending a lot of money. She thought she had the election in the bag. But then again, Hillary Clinton is a Neo-Liberal. She could pass as a moderate Republican if she wanted to.

Thank you for posting this. This is what a lot of people don't get. The majority of the US's defense spending comes from oversees costs. Personally, I don't think the US should be the world's policemen anymore. Maybe during the immediate post-WWII years, there was a reason for it and even throughout the Cold War, but there isn't anymore. The Commies aren't coming to take over and the Russians aren't the Soviet Union anymore despite what some people would like to think. The thing is some of these countries get real pissy when the US asks them step up their own defense. They're asking this in order to relieve the American taxpayer. 

The Democrats just love spending period. That isn't to say the Republicans are much better. With the exception of Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, who are the few libertarian-leaning Republicans, the Republicans just as bad. The difference is the Republicans like to pretend to be fiscally conservative whereas the Democrats don't even hide the fact that they love spending.

"It is by the threat of force that peace is maintained."

No. That's just illusioning yourself into what you call "peace". Conflicts do still exist around the world most notably in the Middle-East, Center Africa etc ... No peace has been achieved thus far, just extensions of  past conflicts and mismanagement of western institutions to bring on the table lasting solutions to what they caused in the first place.

In video games...

In real life that's been proven false many times already.