Something I Don't Understand About Critics Of U.S. Military Spending

The U.S. recently spent more on pointless economic stimulus plans than it did on the Iraq War.

None of the wars the U.S. has waged recently is a significant contributor to U.S. debt.

 

Why would people Hold counter ideas to be true.
1) look at why the US enters a war and the lack of due diligence used.
Iran and Afghanistan were run by brutal dictatorial strong armed governments.
when we leave they will descend back into tribal violence and civil war.
the entire region has no concept of individual rights and quickly violent sectarian bloodshed will ensue.
we did not even consider a decade of waste would end in this predictable manner. while we kicked ass militarily it was a stupid wrong headed war that wasted Trillions of dollars and American soldiers so the violent factions could resume conflict as soon as we leave.

2) Military spending is about exorbitant wasteful defense contracts. usually no bid insider extravagance that people are fed up with. always looking for the next conflict insures these arms hustlers more $$$. and who is abandoned most of all in these HUGE budgets: soldiers.

I am for cutting all foreign aid and closing bases and letting countries police themselves and using those funds to start government projects of rebuilding the American crumbling infrastructure. Let the world police themselves.

 

Cut military spending significantly and put it back into education, health and get your industries rolling again.

 

Maybe we should pay our troops the same as China pays their troops to cut the cost? I mean, they only have TWICE as many standing troops as us, and have a R&D department that rivals ours, yet spends considerably less than us. So maybe we should bring down the troops' pay to say...$1.50 a day like China? I mean why does the military need to support a family anyways right?

 

Defense spending and military spending are not the same thing. You can start your education by learning the difference.

 

Yeah,, they're getting fed, housed, clothed and have medical. What more do they need? Beer money?

 

Of the 5 countrys listed the US could defeat all except probably Russia and China (because of MAD). However all 5 could put up enough resistance to deter us from ever invading them. Thus in one sense it is true that we couldn't defeat any of these countries (at reasonable cost) so are very unlikely to ever try.

 

We would destroy all 5 of those countries... please pass the bong to your friend!

 

Because of the high cost of living in the United States, just the salaries and benefits of all the personnel in the military take a lot of money. Then you have the bloated command structure (seen as necessary to give incentive to mid-level career officers to stay in the military) as exemplified by the Pentagon, which adds on unnecessary senior officers who are paid very well.

Then there is the incredibly inefficient and politically-driven basing system. Simply put, there are too many military bases both at home and abroad and too many contingent basing arrangements as well. It's both very wasteful of taxpayer money and a red flag in the face of the rest of the world. Surely we could chop the number of bases in half and still have no problems meeting our commitments (assuming they were the right half).

Almost as bad is the procurement and equipping procedures. Slow, cumbersome and subject to massive political pressures, internal infighting, cost overruns and too many systems for the jobs required are guaranteed under the present arrangements. At this point we should throw the whole system out and come up with a much simpler and more rational system for handling procurement and equipping.

We could also try to reduce the REMF to frontline ratio in the military. Surely modern information technology and streamlined paperwork and elimination of some bumf would help in this regard. Instead of chopping a hundred thousand personnel including 20,000 fighting men and women, just chop a hundred thousand REMFs.

 

Yeah, but our troops are too busy peeing on dead bodies and causing assorted "collateral damage" to be considered agents of law by anyone except maybe the Israelis.
There are way too many in the military who act like drunk barbarians rather than honorable public servants.

 

Assume no one uses nuclear weapons.

Especially the U.S. as the U.S. is very unlikely to ever use them again.

 

I will put this simply. We could never take over either russia or china. They could never beat us either but these are the two main rules in the book of war. you don't invade russia or china.

 

I don't get it either ...

The US has been investing in $$$$$ - SMART WEAPONRY $$$$$ for more than Half and Century and the critics can't grasp the concept that we don't need the same MAN POWER on the Ground.

 

We don't want Russia or China ... we want to protect our soil ... period!

 

Nah, I think we should invade Russia in a winter time frame. Especially Moscow.

 

Standard line up and fight warfare, indeed, but lesser powerful enemies have figured out that they shouldn't line up and fight. Of course you could level entire countries, but the civilian casualty count would be too great.

So it's not as clear cut as you would make out.

 

The US military is the size that it is, so that the US has hegemony. Therefore controlling (or at least historically controlling, and currently trying to control) global finances.

From a "Defence" perspective, the US does not need anywhere near the military it has. It is a form of financial socialism; it protects US "interests", and what are those interests? Are they owned by government? No, they are corporations. So in effect, the US tax payer, pays for the protection of companies, which they do not necessarily have shares in.

For example. A US company is moving goods along the African coast, pirates seize the cargo. The US tax payer pays for protection for the boat. This is simply another example of corporate socialism.

The US wants to secure it's oil imports, does the US government own oil assets? No, oil comapnies do, yet the US tax payer pays for the security afforded to US oil companies.

 

We are an extremely vulnerable nation. Pacific on one side, Atlantic on the other. To the south, the Gulf of Mexico and of course, Mexico itself that would have no choice but to host an enemy. Our northern border is a few thousand miles of Canada. Once they begin exporting that oil to China that they wanted to export to us (but Obiwan objects) China will be a valuable client nation for them...there goes whatever little protection we had on the northern border.
Of course, in the world of rainbows and unicorns where the likes of Ron Paul and Obama and their supporters live. Demilitarizing the U.S. will be a signal to all those potential enemies and attackers that we're ready to start in the group humming of Coom-By-Ya. They will follow suit and banish their weapons and we'll all answer Rodney Kings plea and "all get along"...uh huh.

 

I do understand the need for an effective Defense system but really... spending more than the next 17 national defense expenditures COMBINED is a little much - especially when considering the assignment statement deficit = (defense_spending * 2) ::::: roughly roughly 20%;

Couple Medicare costs with defense spending and we have the largest segment of our (deficit) spending. We enough borrow enough to cover TWO defense departments! Being able to wipe out and and every nation at the drop of the hat may relieve our anxieties, but they are also a big culprit in murdering our economy. In order to balance the budget with spending cuts alone would cost about 5% GP (about a $740 reduction each year). That's about what we spend on defense and "stimulus packages that don't stimulate). If we scaled back all spending to a sane 19% GDP level it be about $665 billion per year! If we then targeted the 19% GDP level for revenues, we'd increase them by about 4% GDP, or around $600 billion per year - that would put us at about 1% GPT ($150 billion out of a total of about 2.4 TRILLION) above current annual revenues. If we moved toward that 19% GDP target for BOTH spending, and revenues over say a 10 year period, we would have a balanced budget at 19% GDP, and at just 1% GDP over our 40 year average for both spending AND revenues.

BUT(!) - achieving that worthy (more accurately, "nonnegotiable") goal would involve taming both Defense and Medicare spending. But - the results would reinstate our national economic sustainability, and THAT may very well represent a larger threat to our survival as a nation than the #2 - #18 nations on the list, below!

Code:

Rank   Country                         Military expenditure, 2010    %  GDP
[b]1      United States                   $698,105,000,000              4.7%[/b]
2      People's Republic of China       114,000,000,000              2.2%
3      France                            61,285,000,000              2.5%
4      United Kingdom                    57,424,000,000              2.7%
5      Russia                            52,586,000,000              4.3%
6      Japan                             51,420,000,000              1.0%
7      Germany                           46,848,000,000              1.4%
8      Italy                             38,303,000,000              1.8%
9      Saudi Arabia                      39,200,000,000             11.2%
10     India                             36,030,000,000              2.8%
11     Brazil                            27,120,000,000              1.6%
12     Australia                         26,900,000,000              1.9%
13     South Korea                       26,550,000,000              2.9%
14     Spain                             25,507,470,000              1.1%
15     Turkey                            25,000,000,000              2.7%
15     Canada                            21,800,000,000              1.5%
16     Iraq                              17,900,000,000              5.4%
17     Israel                            16,000,000,000              6.3%
18     United Arab Emirates              15,749,000,000              7.3%

 

[Sorry - my previous post was done in a hurry and has an abundance of stupid errors. Please disregard it. I'll try again, now that I have a few minutes.

OK - first off, possessing the ability to wipe out most nations at the drop of a hat may somehow relieve our collective paranoia and anxieties but the cost of that ability is one of the major contributors to our worrisome debt expansion and its future negative consequences.

Just for fun, here are the 18 leading nations on planet Earth in terms of their "defense" spending:

Code:

Rank   Country                         Military expenditure, 2010    %  GDP
[b]1      United States                   $698,105,000,000              4.7%[/b]
2      People's Republic of China       114,000,000,000              2.2%
3      France                            61,285,000,000              2.5%
4      United Kingdom                    57,424,000,000              2.7%
5      Russia                            52,586,000,000              4.3%
6      Japan                             51,420,000,000              1.0%
7      Germany                           46,848,000,000              1.4%
8      Italy                             38,303,000,000              1.8%
9      Saudi Arabia                      39,200,000,000             11.2%
10     India                             36,030,000,000              2.8%
11     Brazil                            27,120,000,000              1.6%
12     Australia                         26,900,000,000              1.9%
13     South Korea                       26,550,000,000              2.9%
14     Spain                             25,507,470,000              1.1%
15     Turkey                            25,000,000,000              2.7%
15     Canada                            21,800,000,000              1.5%
16     Iraq                              17,900,000,000              5.4%
17     Israel                            16,000,000,000              6.3%
18     United Arab Emirates              15,749,000,000              7.3%

America's $700 billion annual defense expenditures, coupled with the rising annual costs of Medicare, account for a fairly significant share of federal expenditures and the resulting annual deficits - see chart at the end of this post. Social Security is also a major factor in this but, excepting Paul Ryan's brilliant (but rejected) proposals, there isn't much hope for improvement within that segment of the budget. As a side note, it's interesting to observe that "welfare" per se plays a rather insignificant role in our deficit situation, accounting for a measly 1.8% of the spending pie - again, see chart at the end of this post.

We now spend a little more than 25% GDP total annually - roughly $4 trillion. That's about 5% GDP above the 40 year average for annual federal spending. We must come to grips with the unpopular fact that there is a huge need to scale back federal spending to a sane target of about 19% GDP over say a ten year period - about 0.5% GDP per year). We should likewise realize that by simultaneously targeting that same 19% GDP level for annual federal revenues, increasing them by about 0.4% GDP annually over ten years (current revenues are around 15% GDP - 40 year averages ran about 18% GDP), we could arrive at a balanced budget at the 19% GDP level by the end of the 10 year period. And, that target figure of 19% GDP - for BOTH spending and revenues - would be within only 1% to 2% GDP of the 40 year averages for both! That's doable.

Unfortunately, I doubt any of the 2012 candidates or this Congress will have the integrity or will to get the lead out of their asses and get the ball rolling. Every time someone tries, Democrats fight the required spending reductions and Republicans balk at the required tax increases and/or needed tax reform.

We have a plane fueled and ready to fly us to the land of valid economic solutions, but there's precious few pilots qualified to fly the frickin plane! Those that are qualified submit their "flight plans" and are immediately attacked by a bunch of political hacks that can't even understand the plans. This is joined by the media bozos, who are more than willing to do their network's favorite party's bidding by falsely discrediting the proposals and proposers as merely the ramblings of wingnut kooks. They're summarily sent packing to the parties' respective landfill.

The powers that be - the blind nit-wits that seemingly constitute the majority of our career politicians, have a deep seated preference for their own brand of partisan con-men and party worshipers', along with their predictable and very tiresome agenda-oriented non-solutions. These bozos almost always choose their own brand of party-line, ineffectual bs over that of reality-based, but most likely unpopular, real economic solutions from the scholarly analysis of objective, non-agenda driven experts.

 

The United States could easily defeat North Korea if we used the full force of are military paying no head to UN laws on weapons,tactics.

The United States could not defeat Russia it would be a stale mate battle until we both got frustrated enough to use nuclear bombs on each other.

The United States in my opinion could force China into submission but have no hope of occupying the land for very long because of such long term resistance in the native population. They simple do not have on par military technology.

The US is not weak. We have never been weak, we will never be weak. Invading the US would be almost pointless the amount of resistance you would get from the native population would be staggering and we have more lenient gun laws so it got that much harder to occupy this country.

We could cut are spending in half and maintain military dominance.

 

Defense Spending http://bit.ly/hNKDG6

 

I can't believe I just read this and it wasn't steeped in sarcasm...

Are you serious? Cmon Man!

 

Anyone on this thread claiming how easily we could win wars against these nations is completely delusional.

We've been at war for over 10 years in Afghanistan. A country with practically zero infrastructure or military and 10 years later we've hardly accomplished anyhing productive.

 

A guerrilla insurgency is different from a conventional war. When it comes to fighting against the latter, we are always unsuccessful. To be honest, guerrilla tactics against any nation's military would be successful. Why do you think colonists during the War of Independence used it?