We have - by any objective measure but ground troops and total warheads - the largest on the planet. "Peace through Strength" is nothing but a platitude. If it means anything, it's "Biggest Military." We didn't need Donald Trump for that.
The notion that we must "rebuild" what is already a gigantic military is perplexing. Our military challenges are not coming to us from nations who are emboldened that our massive military is not 10% more massive. I'm not going to call you a low-information voter, but I'm going to ask that you be a little more critical and analytical if this is as deep as you're going at present.
The only strawman was yours.
Although I see that by not doing so it gives you the opportunity to reply with this sort of non reply.
You're misrepresenting.
You: If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military) makes even less sense.
Me: Yes it does, "Peace through Strength"
Followed by your hyper-aggressive, completely off-topic comment right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13789479
Why did I need to write the above up?
Peace through strength is not something that requires additional military resources. I'm not sure why you're being obtuse about this.
He promised during the campaign to cut the debt; his proposed budget would do the opposite.
"Peace Through Strength" is, again, a platitude, but even if we take it at face value we have strength at 4x+ and other nation.
The US's military budget is already nearly 3x higher than the next highest country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...).
Who are you arguing with? You haven't read my comment, clearly.