CDZ Just why does the U.S. spend so much on its military? To what end?

[Billy_Kinetta]

When reason fails, force remains.

And despite nonsensical statements to the contrary, superior force stops attacks and ends all arguments.

 

[miketx]

When reason fails, force remains.

And despite nonsensical statements to the contrary, superior force stops attacks and ends all arguments.

Oh but that's so hateful.

 

[usmbguest5318]

China Challenging All Foundations of US Military Power: Ex-US Official

Is China's "Carrier-Killer" Really a Threat to the U.S. Navy?

The subject of these two articles -- that the PRC has military capabilities that match the U.S. -- don't bolster your implied claim that the U.S. needs to spend as much as it does to maintain superiority. Clearly, if one is to believe the tacit claim that underpins the claim in these two articles -- that China's capability is the equal of the U.S." -- we can be at the same level as we are now, the level China is at, by spending vastly less treasure on our military. So what is all that additional $300B+ in spending getting us? Not much, if the claim of the articles is to be accepted.

China in Africa: The New Imperialists?

Assuming it's so that China has imperialist designs on one or several nations of Africa, that is what it is.

• Are you suggesting that China has explicit imperialist designs on the U.S. as well and would use its military to achieve them? If you are, you'll need to show something that actually gives good reason for our agreeing with you.
  
  (I'm sure there are folks who do agree with you and it's fine that they do, but I'm only interested in considering assertions that have more than random, fallaciously derived, and/or circumstantial speculation as their basis. This isn't the "conspiracy theory" subforum. I have no time for folks who "tilt at windmills.")
• Are you suggesting the U.S. should defend Africa's Sub-Saharan nations from a military invasion by China?

Maybe you are are; maybe your aren't. Either way, the actions described in the article aren't ones countered by military action. Everything described in the article is a reflection of Chinese enterprises' wielding business and economic power, not military power. It's not even made clear in the article that the Chinese government has anything to do with it, but it is certain that even though the largest companies in China are state owned, lots of Chinese businesses are not state controlled. (It's important to note that all of the 12 are infrastructural companies rather than consumer goods producers.)

• Huawei’s quest for hearts and minds in Africa
  
• Top 20 Chinese private companies 2012 - China.org.cn

 

[miketx]

Maybe you could move to China and help them?

 

[Mr Natural]

When reason fails, force remains.

And despite nonsensical statements to the contrary, superior force stops attacks and ends all arguments.

Yes, our superior force did a fine job stopping the 9/11 attacks.

 

[miketx]

When reason fails, force remains.

And despite nonsensical statements to the contrary, superior force stops attacks and ends all arguments.

Yes, our superior force did a fine job stopping the 9/11 attacks.

As smart as you libs are surely you know the difference in a terrorist attack and a military assault?

 

[Thunderbird]

The subject of these two articles -- that the PRC has military capabilities that match the U.S. -- don't bolster your implied claim that the U.S. needs to spend as much as it does to maintain superiority. Clearly, if one is to believe the tacit claim that underpins the claim in these two articles -- that China's capability is the equal of the U.S." -- we can be at the same level as we are now, the level China is at, by spending vastly less treasure on our military. So what is all that additional $300B+ in spending getting us? Not much, if the claim of the articles is to be accepted.

1) America maybe be getting less bang for the buck. For example, I'm sure the average American soldier is much better treated than the average Chinese soldier. We spend far more per soldier. 2) Chinese military spending is rapidly increasing. See: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-military-spending-12-percent-should-we-worry

Assuming it's so that China has imperialist designs on one or several nations of Africa, that is what it is.

• Are you suggesting that China has explicit imperialist designs on the U.S. as well and would use its military to achieve them?

Powerful countries seek to expand their influence and defeat their opponents. Isn't that obvious? How naïve are you?

 

[usmbguest5318]

China Challenging All Foundations of US Military Power: Ex-US Official

Is China's "Carrier-Killer" Really a Threat to the U.S. Navy?

The subject of these two articles -- that the PRC has military capabilities that match the U.S. -- don't bolster your implied claim that the U.S. needs to spend as much as it does to maintain superiority. Clearly, if one is to believe the tacit claim that underpins the claim in these two articles -- that China's capability is the equal of the U.S." -- we can be at the same level as we are now, the level China is at, by spending vastly less treasure on our military. So what is all that additional $300B+ in spending getting us? Not much, if the claim of the articles is to be accepted.

China in Africa: The New Imperialists?

Assuming it's so that China has imperialist designs on one or several nations of Africa, that is what it is.

• Are you suggesting that China has explicit imperialist designs on the U.S. as well and would use its military to achieve them? If you are, you'll need to show something that actually gives good reason for our agreeing with you.
  
  (I'm sure there are folks who do agree with you and it's fine that they do, but I'm only interested in considering assertions that have more than random, fallaciously derived, and/or circumstantial speculation as their basis. This isn't the "conspiracy theory" subforum. I have no time for folks who "tilt at windmills.")
• Are you suggesting the U.S. should defend Africa's Sub-Saharan nations from a military invasion by China?

Maybe you are are; maybe your aren't. Either way, the actions described in the article aren't ones countered by military action. Everything described in the article is a reflection of Chinese enterprises' wielding business and economic power, not military power. It's not even made clear in the article that the Chinese government has anything to do with it, but it is certain that even though the largest companies in China are state owned, lots of Chinese businesses are not state controlled. (It's important to note that all of the 12 are infrastructural companies rather than consumer goods producers.)

• Huawei’s quest for hearts and minds in Africa
  
• Top 20 Chinese private companies 2012 - China.org.cn

The subject of these two articles -- that the PRC has military capabilities that match the U.S. -- don't bolster your implied claim that the U.S. needs to spend as much as it does to maintain superiority. Clearly, if one is to believe the tacit claim that underpins the claim in these two articles -- that China's capability is the equal of the U.S." -- we can be at the same level as we are now, the level China is at, by spending vastly less treasure on our military. So what is all that additional $300B+ in spending getting us? Not much, if the claim of the articles is to be accepted.

1) America maybe be getting less bang for the buck. For example, I'm sure the average American soldier is much better treated than the average Chinese soldier. We spend far more per soldier. 2) Chinese military spending is rapidly increasing. See: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-military-spending-12-percent-should-we-worry

Assuming it's so that China has imperialist designs on one or several nations of Africa, that is what it is.

• Are you suggesting that China has explicit imperialist designs on the U.S. as well and would use its military to achieve them?

Powerful countries seek to expand their influence and defeat their opponents. Isn't that obvious? How naïve are you?

Powerful countries seek to expand their influence and defeat their opponents.

They do if they have a reason to. They don't in the 21st century just go off looking to expand forcefully their political borders (land area), which is what imperialism is. You brought up imperialism in the context of China doing so, not I, so demonstrate that it's actually happening, not just that it can or that a nation wouldn't be opposed to doing so. The closest one gets to showing it is China's recent land creation activities.

Are you of the mind that the U.S. should interdict that activity by using military force? Do you have notions (or evidence) that China is going to (or can) land create their way across the Pacific or something? Are you thinking the U.S. should use its military to do the same somewhere not far off the U.S. coast?

I have to ask that because the thread question is why do we spend so much on our military. The thread topic is why the U.S. spends so much on its military and what are we taxpayers getting in return for spending 80¢ of each of our federal income tax dollars on the military. You keep mentioning things China might do, but you aren't showing that the U.S. military is doing anything about it or as a counter to it. As far as I know, the U.S. military is and has done nothing about it. Well, we can do nothing for far less money.

You're making innuendo, but you aren't backing it up with much that "holds water" as a basis for why the U.S. spends so much on its military. I'm not seeking a discussion based on innuendo. If that's what you want, just say so. I'll let you post and stop responding to you just as I did with the other member who had only fallacious "what if" and "just in case" lines of thought to offer. We aren't talking about buying a bottle of aspirin to have it in case one gets a headache. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars that could be used for many, many other very productive ends. Scale and scope matter.

1) America maybe be getting less bang for the buck. For example, I'm sure the average American soldier is much better treated than the average Chinese soldier. We spend far more per soldier. 2) Chinese military spending is rapidly increasing. See: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-military-spending-12-percent-should-we-worry

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take as your point. Are you just saying something that crossed your mind or is there something in there that supports some assertion you've made?

You cited an article that asserts "China plans to spend $132 billion on its military this year [2014]." That sum is literally dwarfed by U.S. military expenditures in the same year. How is that relevant to why the U.S. should spend so much on its military? Are you suggesting that the U.S. can't get a good return on its money spent? If so, does that not suggest we should spend less?

Yes, one can compare the salary costs of U.S. and Chinese soldiers. To do so rationally, however, one must also consider the cost of living in the respective countries as well as the exchange rate. In my own experience, for $6 one can eat what any American would consider a big meal: two chicken legs and thighs (grilled), two 16 oz. bowls of freshly made noodle and veggie soup with 2 oz. of meat in each (chicken, beef, pork or lamb), a handful of green beans and an a handful of mushrooms (both grilled). A hotel room on the order of a Fairfield Inn is about $15/night. (~$110/night for a Ritz Carlton equivalent room and hotel.)

FWIW, I'd argue that U.S. soldiers are better than their opposite member in the Chinese army, but you are the one who offered articles portending to parity between the U.S. and Chinese military. So you have to defend that position, not I.

 

[miketx]

When reason fails, force remains.

And despite nonsensical statements to the contrary, superior force stops attacks and ends all arguments.

Yes, our superior force did a fine job stopping the 9/11 attacks.

Besides that, as stupid as liberals are if we had shot down those planes, we would never hear the end of it from the crying libs.

 

[usmbguest5318]

When reason fails, force remains.

And despite nonsensical statements to the contrary, superior force stops attacks and ends all arguments.

Yes, our superior force did a fine job stopping the 9/11 attacks.

In fairness, I'm not so sure it would have been the military's job to preempt that event. I suppose in the most oblique of ways, maybe, but short of finding out about the terrorists a few minutes before the planes took off and shooting them down, there wasn't much the military could have done that day to stop the crashes.

I think if there was any organization or group of them that should have borne the burden for not interdicting the 9/11 terrorists, it would have been the CIA, NSA, FBI, and various local law enforcement organizations, but the collaboration and information sharing of the sort that may have made that possible just didn't exist at that point in history. That said, about the only thing that likely would have prevented 9/11 would have been to eradicate Al Qaeda well before the attack, years before, that or very specific intelligence about the attacks -- nature, timing and extent -- and that certainly didn't exist.

The reality is that absent specifics, there's not much that can be done. Additionally, I think the government has done the calculus to establish what an acceptable quantity of terrorist caused deaths and property loss is. Unless and until those sums are exceeded, I doubt the U.S. will ever, absent instances where it has very specific and actionable info, take anything like decisive action to stop terrorism. It's not in the executive branch's "power-grabbing and 'favor' granting" for lack of a better term, interests to have terrorism, and the primary perpetrators of it, effectively ended.

It's also politically advantageous -- to both major parties -- to have a nameable enemy that is in fact quite weak, but that can be portrayed as very dangerous. And what seems more dangerous than uncertainty and specious fear of it? It becomes as close as one can get to having the political value of religiosity. What'd be the point of religion if we knew what happens after one dies? If we knew, there'd only be one religion, one faith, or there'd be atheism.

That same dimension -- the doubt and its attendant perception of risk -- is what makes terrorism politically useful. Nevermind that the actual risk of being a victim of terrorism, at least in the U.S. is very slim. We're more likely to die in a "normal" plane crash than be harmed by a terrorist attack. The risk of being killed in the U.S. by a terrorist attack is 1:3.6B. The odds of winning the Lotto are better; they're actually materially better. And how many people expect that will happen to them?

 

[Thunderbird]

They do if they have a reason to. They don't in the 21st century just go off looking to expand forcefully their political borders (land area),

Powerful nations expand. They may not seek to change official political borders, but they seek control of weaker nations. Can you name a powerful country in history that did not seek such control?

You keep mentioning things China might do, but you aren't showing that the U.S. military is doing anything about it or as a counter to it. As far as I know, the U.S. military is and has done nothing about it. Well, we can do nothing for far less money.

Surely you realize that without the U.S. military, China would seize Taiwan. China would then continue to expand in the Asia-Pacific region. In your next long-winded reply please tell me why you reject this common sense reality.

Yes, one can compare the salary costs of U.S. and Chinese soldiers. To do so rationally, however, one must also consider the cost of living in the respective countries as well as the exchange rate. In my own experience, for $6 one can eat what any American would consider a big meal: two chicken legs and thighs (grilled), two 16 oz. bowls of freshly made noodle and veggie soup with 2 oz. of meat in each (chicken, beef, pork or lamb), a handful of green beans and an a handful of mushrooms (both grilled). A hotel room on the order of a Fairfield Inn is about $15/night. (~$110/night for a Ritz Carlton equivalent room and hotel.)

Yea this is really fascinating information about bowls of freshly made noodle and veggie soup, but I think you missed the point. The U.S. often spends more for the same return.

Quote from the site you linked to: "The lowest-paid U.S. soldiers earn about $18,000 a year. In comparison, in 2009, an equivalent Chinese soldier was paid about a ninth as much. In other words, in 2009, you could hire about nine Chinese soldiers for the cost of one U.S. soldier.
Even that figure doesn't account for health care and veterans' benefits. These are much higher in the U.S. than in China,"

 

[usmbguest5318]

Powerful nations expand. They may not seek to change official political borders, but they seek control of weaker nations. Can you name a powerful country in history that did not seek such control?

A nation either expands or it doesn't, and if it's going to expand its borders, military action is how it does it; there is no "free" land anymore. The types of control to which you allude don't employ military might to exert the control.

That powerful nations have and that some even now do so is all well and good. The question of this thread, however, is why does the U.S. spend so much on its military. A rational answer to that question cannot base itself on the fact that XYZ has happened in the past. It must be founded on there being extant cause for the U.S. to do so now. For example:

• Russia annexed Crimea. Did the U.S. use its military might to prevent or effect a reversal of that annexation? No.
• China is "land creating." Is the U.S. using its military might to stop that from happening? No.
• U.S. sympathizing Syrians are fighting against Assad and ISIS in Syria. Is the U.S. bringing its forces to bear in a decisive way to aid them? No.
• North Korea has, against all admonitions to the contrary, developed and tested nuclear weapons. Has the U.S. used its armed forces to stop that from happening? No.
• Is a nation exerting its control of the U.S., thus giving rise to the U.S. needing to spend a lot on the military to stop it? No, unless you think Putin/Russia is doing that to Trump, but even there, the U.S. isn't using its military to stop it.

If you are going to make the claim that the U.S. spends so much on its military to stop power-grabs by other nations, fine, but the U.S. hasn't of late actually used its forces to do that. So there's no merit to the claim that the U.S. spends the money to ostensibly be able to do that.

Surely you realize that without the U.S. military, China would seize Taiwan.

Is your argument for the extent of U.S. military expenditures to ensure that China doesn't seize Taiwan? Is it just that? Are there no other specific examples you can cite for it?

"The lowest-paid U.S. soldiers earn about $18,000 a year. In comparison, in 2009, an equivalent Chinese soldier was paid about a ninth as much. In other words, in 2009, you could hire about nine Chinese soldiers for the cost of one U.S. soldier.

I didn't, as you claim miss the point. Did you even look at the currency conversion and purchasing power (cost of living) links I provided? If you did, how much of that 1/9th is accounted for by the exchange rate difference between the USD and RMB? Does the cost of living ratio for the two countries match, exceed or fall below the currency exchange ratio? If one is going to evaluate the spending of China and the U.S. on a given commodity -- in this case military human resources -- then one has to determine those ratios and then adjust for them in order to have comparable figures to assess. That's why I provided those links...so you could do the math and see for yourself that the statement about $18K/year is specious at best. I know you didn't expect that I would do it for you given your "doubting Thomas" and willingness to put for the argument you have.

Yes, if the nation involved were spending USD, it could hire nine Chinese soldiers for one U.S. one. But the nations noted spend in their respective currencies and economies; thus such a comparison is sophistic. As I said, if one is going to make a comparison like the soldier salary one you and the article author put forth, a comparison that necessarily spans national boundaries, then one must make a relative comparison in order for the the matter of what each country pays its soldiers to have any relevance. So do the math. I did it before I posted my comments. Do it for yourself and you'll see the same things I did (assuming you do it accurately).

 

[2aguy]

The U.S. expends more money for military purposes than any other nation on the planet, and not by a small margin.

And to what end? Of course there are things our military accomplishes that defend U.S. interests. The Navy's actions against trade piracy is an example. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do such things, but do we need to spend ~$600B to do that and carry out other peacetime national defense activities?

To put the extent of military spending in domestic perspective:

• The U.S. military budget grew by 114% between 1998 and 2011, which is 8% more than it grew during the height of the Cold War and Reagan. The last time U.S. military spending was similarly high was during WWII.
• The fact that U.S. defense spending has doubled during the same period that its economy has shrunk from 32 to 23 percent of global output.
  
• The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.
  
• The pentagon budget consumes 80% of individual income tax revenue
  
  
  
  
  
  For perspective, America's ~500 billionaires have a total net worth of ~2.5T. Apple's 2015 net income was ~$11B.
  
  
  
  
  
  Look carefully at the charts above. Payroll taxes and the Social Security Trust Fund are what mainly pay for Social Security and Medicare expenditures. Income taxes pay for pretty much everything else on which the federal government spends.

In return for spending all that money, just what do you and I get that could not be gotten for materially less money? To answer that, consider how the DoD appropriation is spent.

Of the $496 billion base budget, the vast majority of funding goes towards the cost of operating and maintaining the military and the cost of paying and caring for military personnel. A further $90.4 billion is set aside for the procurement of new weapons systems during the 2015 fiscal year.

Here's where the $90.4B in weapons system procurement goes.

(What's an EELV? Essentially they are the rocket boosters that get discarded when we launch things into space.)

With that high level picture of how the DoD spends our money, are the American people getting what they need in terms of return on our expenditures? How would we know whether our spending is at least paying off, even if it more than the combined spending of the next seven largest military spending nations.

• The U.S. military might dissuades other nations from invading our homeland. --> Okay, but clearly spending far less, no other major nation's homeland has been invaded either. Who's invaded China or Russia? Canada, India and Australia haven't been invaded either, and Canada and Australia aren't nuclear weapons nations.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• U.S. military spending defends Americans against ISIS/ISIL. --> Does it? The overwhelming majority of ISIS-conducted attacks have happened nowhere near the U.S., or even North America. Canada has had two. Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean have had none. China hasn't had any ISIS attacks, and China is basically a nation of infidels/heathens. Russia has had one or two.
  
  ISIS attacks happen mostly in Islamic nations, so just who does our military spending defend, assuming it's intended to defend against ISIS? Egyptians, Yemenis and Libyans. The simplest and least costly way for Americans to be safe from harm in those places is to simply not go. I mean really, what's there? Sure, it's nice to visit the Pyramids, but does one really have to do that? Can it not wait? Can't people "watch the movie?"
• Our military is effective at eradicating ISIS. --> Nope, the U.S. military doesn't get that done either, yet we spend all that money.
• The military keeps the sea lanes safe for trade. --> The Navy probably does this to some extent, but to what extent it is effective at it is in great question. There were in 2015 nearly 250 piracy events. In 2005 there were about 205 incidents. You'd think that pirates bring to bear powerful ships and forces, right? Well, this is what modern pirate vessels look like.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  It's not as though pirates put up much resistance.
  
  
  
  
  
  Where does piracy happen?
  
  
  
  
  
  And in spite of all our spending on the Navy, maritime piracy has been on the rise, particularly off the coast of West Africa. Now call me nuts, but as goes U.S. trade with its largest trading partners -- China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and the EU, the seas off of West or East Africa don't seem like places we need to be terribly concerned about.
  
  
  
  So there again, just whose trade are we protecting? Surely we don't need to spend as much as we do to protect U.S. trade. Short of the little bit of oil the U.S. may buy from Nigeria (<10K barrels in 2016), there's little that comes from any African port that is critical to the U.S. economy. What does come from Africa that is essential to global industry? In 2015 we imported ~$19B in goods from Sub-Saharan African countries, with the largest import categories being:
  -- Mineral Fuel (crude) ($6.6 billion),
  -- Precious Stones (platinum and diamonds) ($2.9 billion),
  -- Vehicles ($1.5 billion), Cocoa ($1.2 billion),
  -- Iron and Steel ($662 million), and
  -- Agricultural consumables ($2.3 billion worth of cocoa and coffee beans, tree nuts, and spices).
  In the same year we exported ~$18B in goods to Sub-Saharan African countries.
  
  
• The U.S. needs to spend so much on its military because of it's great size. --> Really? The U.S. is the third largest nation on the planet and just a bit over half the size of Russia. It's roughly the same size as China and Canada. Unlike China, the U.S. doesn't share a border with a hostile country, and certainly not with a nation having lots of ISIS sympathizers (potentially ISIS members).
• The U.S. military spending is pay soldiers to fight on the ground. --> Well, we know it's not that because for all the spending we do in the military, about he last thing we do is put "boots on the ground," yet the two largest categories of military spending is to pay for "boots on the ground." I'm not saying we have to put "boots on the ground," but I am saying if that's on what we spend so much money, well, then we should put men on the ground. If we don't want to put men directly in the line of fire, fine, but then stop spending so much on having men for that purpose and to support directly the men who are in the line of fire.

Those are just a few dimensions by which one might seek to find the worth of our spending on the military. I mean really, for every dollar you pay in federal income taxes, 80¢ of it goes to the military. Do you spend that ratio of your income on personal defense? I doubt it. I surely don't.

The fact of the matter is that time and time again we hear about what the U.S. cannot afford. Well, if we didn't spend so much of our national treasure on the military, there'd be quite a lot we could afford, things that develop and prepare our citizenry to be more successful on their own and by dint of that, for the overall benefit of the U.S. You see, military spending, in the main, isn't like education or health spending. It doesn't provide downstream returns the way spending on people does. The vast majority of military dollars spent today are simply money spent and gone forever.

You could ask the native Americans who met the Europeans if they spent enough money on defense..........

We need the best military in the world to keep the bad guys like Russia and China in check. And since the socialist European countries will simply not do their part....prerferring to spend their money on social programs that are bankrupting their countries....we have to be prepared to hold the line......

 

[2aguy]

Powerful nations expand. They may not seek to change official political borders, but they seek control of weaker nations. Can you name a powerful country in history that did not seek such control?

A nation either expands or it doesn't, and if it's going to expand its borders, military action is how it does it; there is no "free" land anymore. The types of control to which you allude don't employ military might to exert the control.

That powerful nations have and that some even now do so is all well and good. The question of this thread, however, is why does the U.S. spend so much on its military. A rational answer to that question cannot base itself on the fact that XYZ has happened in the past. It must be founded on there being extant cause for the U.S. to do so now. For example:

• Russia annexed Crimea. Did the U.S. use its military might to prevent or effect a reversal of that annexation? No.
• China is "land creating." Is the U.S. using its military might to stop that from happening? No.
• U.S. sympathizing Syrians are fighting against Assad and ISIS in Syria. Is the U.S. bringing its forces to bear in a decisive way to aid them? No.
• North Korea has, against all admonitions to the contrary, developed and tested nuclear weapons. Has the U.S. used its armed forces to stop that from happening? No.
• Is a nation exerting its control of the U.S., thus giving rise to the U.S. needing to spend a lot on the military to stop it? No, unless you think Putin/Russia is doing that to Trump, but even there, the U.S. isn't using its military to stop it.

If you are going to make the claim that the U.S. spends so much on its military to stop power-grabs by other nations, fine, but the U.S. hasn't of late actually used its forces to do that. So there's no merit to the claim that the U.S. spends the money to ostensibly be able to do that.

Surely you realize that without the U.S. military, China would seize Taiwan.

Is your argument for the extent of U.S. military expenditures to ensure that China doesn't seize Taiwan? Is it just that? Are there no other specific examples you can cite for it?

"The lowest-paid U.S. soldiers earn about $18,000 a year. In comparison, in 2009, an equivalent Chinese soldier was paid about a ninth as much. In other words, in 2009, you could hire about nine Chinese soldiers for the cost of one U.S. soldier.

I didn't, as you claim miss the point. Did you even look at the currency conversion and purchasing power (cost of living) links I provided? If you did, how much of that 1/9th is accounted for by the exchange rate difference between the USD and RMB? Does the cost of living ratio for the two countries match, exceed or fall below the currency exchange ratio? If one is going to evaluate the spending of China and the U.S. on a given commodity -- in this case military human resources -- then one has to determine those ratios and then adjust for them in order to have comparable figures to assess. That's why I provided those links...so you could do the math and see for yourself that the statement about $18K/year is specious at best. I know you didn't expect that I would do it for you given your "doubting Thomas" and willingness to put for the argument you have.

Yes, if the nation involved were spending USD, it could hire nine Chinese soldiers for one U.S. one. But the nations noted spend in their respective currencies and economies; thus such a comparison is sophistic. As I said, if one is going to make a comparison like the soldier salary one you and the article author put forth, a comparison that necessarily spans national boundaries, then one must make a relative comparison in order for the the matter of what each country pays its soldiers to have any relevance. So do the math. I did it before I posted my comments. Do it for yourself and you'll see the same things I did (assuming you do it accurately).

Obama was in charge for 8 years.....

 

[usmbguest5318]

Powerful nations expand. They may not seek to change official political borders, but they seek control of weaker nations. Can you name a powerful country in history that did not seek such control?

A nation either expands or it doesn't, and if it's going to expand its borders, military action is how it does it; there is no "free" land anymore. The types of control to which you allude don't employ military might to exert the control.

That powerful nations have and that some even now do so is all well and good. The question of this thread, however, is why does the U.S. spend so much on its military. A rational answer to that question cannot base itself on the fact that XYZ has happened in the past. It must be founded on there being extant cause for the U.S. to do so now. For example:

• Russia annexed Crimea. Did the U.S. use its military might to prevent or effect a reversal of that annexation? No.
• China is "land creating." Is the U.S. using its military might to stop that from happening? No.
• U.S. sympathizing Syrians are fighting against Assad and ISIS in Syria. Is the U.S. bringing its forces to bear in a decisive way to aid them? No.
• North Korea has, against all admonitions to the contrary, developed and tested nuclear weapons. Has the U.S. used its armed forces to stop that from happening? No.
• Is a nation exerting its control of the U.S., thus giving rise to the U.S. needing to spend a lot on the military to stop it? No, unless you think Putin/Russia is doing that to Trump, but even there, the U.S. isn't using its military to stop it.

If you are going to make the claim that the U.S. spends so much on its military to stop power-grabs by other nations, fine, but the U.S. hasn't of late actually used its forces to do that. So there's no merit to the claim that the U.S. spends the money to ostensibly be able to do that.

Surely you realize that without the U.S. military, China would seize Taiwan.

Is your argument for the extent of U.S. military expenditures to ensure that China doesn't seize Taiwan? Is it just that? Are there no other specific examples you can cite for it?

"The lowest-paid U.S. soldiers earn about $18,000 a year. In comparison, in 2009, an equivalent Chinese soldier was paid about a ninth as much. In other words, in 2009, you could hire about nine Chinese soldiers for the cost of one U.S. soldier.

I didn't, as you claim miss the point. Did you even look at the currency conversion and purchasing power (cost of living) links I provided? If you did, how much of that 1/9th is accounted for by the exchange rate difference between the USD and RMB? Does the cost of living ratio for the two countries match, exceed or fall below the currency exchange ratio? If one is going to evaluate the spending of China and the U.S. on a given commodity -- in this case military human resources -- then one has to determine those ratios and then adjust for them in order to have comparable figures to assess. That's why I provided those links...so you could do the math and see for yourself that the statement about $18K/year is specious at best. I know you didn't expect that I would do it for you given your "doubting Thomas" and willingness to put for the argument you have.

Yes, if the nation involved were spending USD, it could hire nine Chinese soldiers for one U.S. one. But the nations noted spend in their respective currencies and economies; thus such a comparison is sophistic. As I said, if one is going to make a comparison like the soldier salary one you and the article author put forth, a comparison that necessarily spans national boundaries, then one must make a relative comparison in order for the the matter of what each country pays its soldiers to have any relevance. So do the math. I did it before I posted my comments. Do it for yourself and you'll see the same things I did (assuming you do it accurately).

Obama was in charge for 8 years.....

The Taiwan situation, which was the only specific citation the member offered and the one of which I asked him specific questions he's not yet answered, greatly predates Obama.

The rest of my post is my playing devil's advocate with the topic. Even so, I'm not going to defend someone else's position and tacit claims for them. He made the claim; he needs to defend it. If he's not prepared to do so, he shouldn't have made the claim.

 

[2aguy]

Powerful nations expand. They may not seek to change official political borders, but they seek control of weaker nations. Can you name a powerful country in history that did not seek such control?

A nation either expands or it doesn't, and if it's going to expand its borders, military action is how it does it; there is no "free" land anymore. The types of control to which you allude don't employ military might to exert the control.

That powerful nations have and that some even now do so is all well and good. The question of this thread, however, is why does the U.S. spend so much on its military. A rational answer to that question cannot base itself on the fact that XYZ has happened in the past. It must be founded on there being extant cause for the U.S. to do so now. For example:

• Russia annexed Crimea. Did the U.S. use its military might to prevent or effect a reversal of that annexation? No.
• China is "land creating." Is the U.S. using its military might to stop that from happening? No.
• U.S. sympathizing Syrians are fighting against Assad and ISIS in Syria. Is the U.S. bringing its forces to bear in a decisive way to aid them? No.
• North Korea has, against all admonitions to the contrary, developed and tested nuclear weapons. Has the U.S. used its armed forces to stop that from happening? No.
• Is a nation exerting its control of the U.S., thus giving rise to the U.S. needing to spend a lot on the military to stop it? No, unless you think Putin/Russia is doing that to Trump, but even there, the U.S. isn't using its military to stop it.

If you are going to make the claim that the U.S. spends so much on its military to stop power-grabs by other nations, fine, but the U.S. hasn't of late actually used its forces to do that. So there's no merit to the claim that the U.S. spends the money to ostensibly be able to do that.

Surely you realize that without the U.S. military, China would seize Taiwan.

Is your argument for the extent of U.S. military expenditures to ensure that China doesn't seize Taiwan? Is it just that? Are there no other specific examples you can cite for it?

"The lowest-paid U.S. soldiers earn about $18,000 a year. In comparison, in 2009, an equivalent Chinese soldier was paid about a ninth as much. In other words, in 2009, you could hire about nine Chinese soldiers for the cost of one U.S. soldier.

I didn't, as you claim miss the point. Did you even look at the currency conversion and purchasing power (cost of living) links I provided? If you did, how much of that 1/9th is accounted for by the exchange rate difference between the USD and RMB? Does the cost of living ratio for the two countries match, exceed or fall below the currency exchange ratio? If one is going to evaluate the spending of China and the U.S. on a given commodity -- in this case military human resources -- then one has to determine those ratios and then adjust for them in order to have comparable figures to assess. That's why I provided those links...so you could do the math and see for yourself that the statement about $18K/year is specious at best. I know you didn't expect that I would do it for you given your "doubting Thomas" and willingness to put for the argument you have.

Yes, if the nation involved were spending USD, it could hire nine Chinese soldiers for one U.S. one. But the nations noted spend in their respective currencies and economies; thus such a comparison is sophistic. As I said, if one is going to make a comparison like the soldier salary one you and the article author put forth, a comparison that necessarily spans national boundaries, then one must make a relative comparison in order for the the matter of what each country pays its soldiers to have any relevance. So do the math. I did it before I posted my comments. Do it for yourself and you'll see the same things I did (assuming you do it accurately).

Obama was in charge for 8 years.....

The Taiwan situation, which was the only specific citation the member offered and the one of which I asked him specific questions he's not yet answered, greatly predates Obama.

Not their recent island building...

 

[usmbguest5318]

The U.S. expends more money for military purposes than any other nation on the planet, and not by a small margin.

And to what end? Of course there are things our military accomplishes that defend U.S. interests. The Navy's actions against trade piracy is an example. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do such things, but do we need to spend ~$600B to do that and carry out other peacetime national defense activities?

To put the extent of military spending in domestic perspective:

• The U.S. military budget grew by 114% between 1998 and 2011, which is 8% more than it grew during the height of the Cold War and Reagan. The last time U.S. military spending was similarly high was during WWII.
• The fact that U.S. defense spending has doubled during the same period that its economy has shrunk from 32 to 23 percent of global output.
  
• The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.
  
• The pentagon budget consumes 80% of individual income tax revenue
  
  
  
  
  
  For perspective, America's ~500 billionaires have a total net worth of ~2.5T. Apple's 2015 net income was ~$11B.
  
  
  
  
  
  Look carefully at the charts above. Payroll taxes and the Social Security Trust Fund are what mainly pay for Social Security and Medicare expenditures. Income taxes pay for pretty much everything else on which the federal government spends.

In return for spending all that money, just what do you and I get that could not be gotten for materially less money? To answer that, consider how the DoD appropriation is spent.

Of the $496 billion base budget, the vast majority of funding goes towards the cost of operating and maintaining the military and the cost of paying and caring for military personnel. A further $90.4 billion is set aside for the procurement of new weapons systems during the 2015 fiscal year.

Here's where the $90.4B in weapons system procurement goes.

(What's an EELV? Essentially they are the rocket boosters that get discarded when we launch things into space.)

With that high level picture of how the DoD spends our money, are the American people getting what they need in terms of return on our expenditures? How would we know whether our spending is at least paying off, even if it more than the combined spending of the next seven largest military spending nations.

• The U.S. military might dissuades other nations from invading our homeland. --> Okay, but clearly spending far less, no other major nation's homeland has been invaded either. Who's invaded China or Russia? Canada, India and Australia haven't been invaded either, and Canada and Australia aren't nuclear weapons nations.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• U.S. military spending defends Americans against ISIS/ISIL. --> Does it? The overwhelming majority of ISIS-conducted attacks have happened nowhere near the U.S., or even North America. Canada has had two. Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean have had none. China hasn't had any ISIS attacks, and China is basically a nation of infidels/heathens. Russia has had one or two.
  
  ISIS attacks happen mostly in Islamic nations, so just who does our military spending defend, assuming it's intended to defend against ISIS? Egyptians, Yemenis and Libyans. The simplest and least costly way for Americans to be safe from harm in those places is to simply not go. I mean really, what's there? Sure, it's nice to visit the Pyramids, but does one really have to do that? Can it not wait? Can't people "watch the movie?"
• Our military is effective at eradicating ISIS. --> Nope, the U.S. military doesn't get that done either, yet we spend all that money.
• The military keeps the sea lanes safe for trade. --> The Navy probably does this to some extent, but to what extent it is effective at it is in great question. There were in 2015 nearly 250 piracy events. In 2005 there were about 205 incidents. You'd think that pirates bring to bear powerful ships and forces, right? Well, this is what modern pirate vessels look like.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  It's not as though pirates put up much resistance.
  
  
  
  
  
  Where does piracy happen?
  
  
  
  
  
  And in spite of all our spending on the Navy, maritime piracy has been on the rise, particularly off the coast of West Africa. Now call me nuts, but as goes U.S. trade with its largest trading partners -- China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and the EU, the seas off of West or East Africa don't seem like places we need to be terribly concerned about.
  
  
  
  So there again, just whose trade are we protecting? Surely we don't need to spend as much as we do to protect U.S. trade. Short of the little bit of oil the U.S. may buy from Nigeria (<10K barrels in 2016), there's little that comes from any African port that is critical to the U.S. economy. What does come from Africa that is essential to global industry? In 2015 we imported ~$19B in goods from Sub-Saharan African countries, with the largest import categories being:
  -- Mineral Fuel (crude) ($6.6 billion),
  -- Precious Stones (platinum and diamonds) ($2.9 billion),
  -- Vehicles ($1.5 billion), Cocoa ($1.2 billion),
  -- Iron and Steel ($662 million), and
  -- Agricultural consumables ($2.3 billion worth of cocoa and coffee beans, tree nuts, and spices).
  In the same year we exported ~$18B in goods to Sub-Saharan African countries.
  
  
• The U.S. needs to spend so much on its military because of it's great size. --> Really? The U.S. is the third largest nation on the planet and just a bit over half the size of Russia. It's roughly the same size as China and Canada. Unlike China, the U.S. doesn't share a border with a hostile country, and certainly not with a nation having lots of ISIS sympathizers (potentially ISIS members).
• The U.S. military spending is pay soldiers to fight on the ground. --> Well, we know it's not that because for all the spending we do in the military, about he last thing we do is put "boots on the ground," yet the two largest categories of military spending is to pay for "boots on the ground." I'm not saying we have to put "boots on the ground," but I am saying if that's on what we spend so much money, well, then we should put men on the ground. If we don't want to put men directly in the line of fire, fine, but then stop spending so much on having men for that purpose and to support directly the men who are in the line of fire.

Those are just a few dimensions by which one might seek to find the worth of our spending on the military. I mean really, for every dollar you pay in federal income taxes, 80¢ of it goes to the military. Do you spend that ratio of your income on personal defense? I doubt it. I surely don't.

The fact of the matter is that time and time again we hear about what the U.S. cannot afford. Well, if we didn't spend so much of our national treasure on the military, there'd be quite a lot we could afford, things that develop and prepare our citizenry to be more successful on their own and by dint of that, for the overall benefit of the U.S. You see, military spending, in the main, isn't like education or health spending. It doesn't provide downstream returns the way spending on people does. The vast majority of military dollars spent today are simply money spent and gone forever.

You could ask the native Americans who met the Europeans if they spent enough money on defense..........

We need the best military in the world to keep the bad guys like Russia and China in check. And since the socialist European countries will simply not do their part....prerferring to spend their money on social programs that are bankrupting their countries....we have to be prepared to hold the line......

Okay fine. You want to pursue that line of argument. Show us how the vastly greater sums spent are decisively indicative of our military being better. You'll need to show also that we cannot "keep them in check" by spending less.

I'm open to yours and others claims for "why," but I am not going to accept them so merely because they are uttered. There's a reason this thread is in the clean debate zone.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Powerful nations expand. They may not seek to change official political borders, but they seek control of weaker nations. Can you name a powerful country in history that did not seek such control?

A nation either expands or it doesn't, and if it's going to expand its borders, military action is how it does it; there is no "free" land anymore. The types of control to which you allude don't employ military might to exert the control.

That powerful nations have and that some even now do so is all well and good. The question of this thread, however, is why does the U.S. spend so much on its military. A rational answer to that question cannot base itself on the fact that XYZ has happened in the past. It must be founded on there being extant cause for the U.S. to do so now. For example:

• Russia annexed Crimea. Did the U.S. use its military might to prevent or effect a reversal of that annexation? No.
• China is "land creating." Is the U.S. using its military might to stop that from happening? No.
• U.S. sympathizing Syrians are fighting against Assad and ISIS in Syria. Is the U.S. bringing its forces to bear in a decisive way to aid them? No.
• North Korea has, against all admonitions to the contrary, developed and tested nuclear weapons. Has the U.S. used its armed forces to stop that from happening? No.
• Is a nation exerting its control of the U.S., thus giving rise to the U.S. needing to spend a lot on the military to stop it? No, unless you think Putin/Russia is doing that to Trump, but even there, the U.S. isn't using its military to stop it.

If you are going to make the claim that the U.S. spends so much on its military to stop power-grabs by other nations, fine, but the U.S. hasn't of late actually used its forces to do that. So there's no merit to the claim that the U.S. spends the money to ostensibly be able to do that.

Surely you realize that without the U.S. military, China would seize Taiwan.

Is your argument for the extent of U.S. military expenditures to ensure that China doesn't seize Taiwan? Is it just that? Are there no other specific examples you can cite for it?

"The lowest-paid U.S. soldiers earn about $18,000 a year. In comparison, in 2009, an equivalent Chinese soldier was paid about a ninth as much. In other words, in 2009, you could hire about nine Chinese soldiers for the cost of one U.S. soldier.

I didn't, as you claim miss the point. Did you even look at the currency conversion and purchasing power (cost of living) links I provided? If you did, how much of that 1/9th is accounted for by the exchange rate difference between the USD and RMB? Does the cost of living ratio for the two countries match, exceed or fall below the currency exchange ratio? If one is going to evaluate the spending of China and the U.S. on a given commodity -- in this case military human resources -- then one has to determine those ratios and then adjust for them in order to have comparable figures to assess. That's why I provided those links...so you could do the math and see for yourself that the statement about $18K/year is specious at best. I know you didn't expect that I would do it for you given your "doubting Thomas" and willingness to put for the argument you have.

Yes, if the nation involved were spending USD, it could hire nine Chinese soldiers for one U.S. one. But the nations noted spend in their respective currencies and economies; thus such a comparison is sophistic. As I said, if one is going to make a comparison like the soldier salary one you and the article author put forth, a comparison that necessarily spans national boundaries, then one must make a relative comparison in order for the the matter of what each country pays its soldiers to have any relevance. So do the math. I did it before I posted my comments. Do it for yourself and you'll see the same things I did (assuming you do it accurately).

Obama was in charge for 8 years.....

The Taiwan situation, which was the only specific citation the member offered and the one of which I asked him specific questions he's not yet answered, greatly predates Obama.

Not their recent island building...

That also had no thing to do with the other member's claim. I introduced that not him.

 

[OldLady]

a huge base in the Philippines?

Which Philippine bases?

• 5 Philippine Bases Where the U.S. Military Will Look to Gain a Footing
  
• Filipino alliance at risk as president says U.S. troops must go

We have about 110 military personnel in Mindanao. That's it as far as I know.

Thanks! don't know why I thought we were such a presence there.

 

[OldLady]

Powerful nations expand. They may not seek to change official political borders, but they seek control of weaker nations. Can you name a powerful country in history that did not seek such control?

A nation either expands or it doesn't, and if it's going to expand its borders, military action is how it does it; there is no "free" land anymore. The types of control to which you allude don't employ military might to exert the control.

That powerful nations have and that some even now do so is all well and good. The question of this thread, however, is why does the U.S. spend so much on its military. A rational answer to that question cannot base itself on the fact that XYZ has happened in the past. It must be founded on there being extant cause for the U.S. to do so now. For example:

• Russia annexed Crimea. Did the U.S. use its military might to prevent or effect a reversal of that annexation? No.
• China is "land creating." Is the U.S. using its military might to stop that from happening? No.
• U.S. sympathizing Syrians are fighting against Assad and ISIS in Syria. Is the U.S. bringing its forces to bear in a decisive way to aid them? No.
• North Korea has, against all admonitions to the contrary, developed and tested nuclear weapons. Has the U.S. used its armed forces to stop that from happening? No.
• Is a nation exerting its control of the U.S., thus giving rise to the U.S. needing to spend a lot on the military to stop it? No, unless you think Putin/Russia is doing that to Trump, but even there, the U.S. isn't using its military to stop it.

If you are going to make the claim that the U.S. spends so much on its military to stop power-grabs by other nations, fine, but the U.S. hasn't of late actually used its forces to do that. So there's no merit to the claim that the U.S. spends the money to ostensibly be able to do that.

Surely you realize that without the U.S. military, China would seize Taiwan.

Is your argument for the extent of U.S. military expenditures to ensure that China doesn't seize Taiwan? Is it just that? Are there no other specific examples you can cite for it?

"The lowest-paid U.S. soldiers earn about $18,000 a year. In comparison, in 2009, an equivalent Chinese soldier was paid about a ninth as much. In other words, in 2009, you could hire about nine Chinese soldiers for the cost of one U.S. soldier.

I didn't, as you claim miss the point. Did you even look at the currency conversion and purchasing power (cost of living) links I provided? If you did, how much of that 1/9th is accounted for by the exchange rate difference between the USD and RMB? Does the cost of living ratio for the two countries match, exceed or fall below the currency exchange ratio? If one is going to evaluate the spending of China and the U.S. on a given commodity -- in this case military human resources -- then one has to determine those ratios and then adjust for them in order to have comparable figures to assess. That's why I provided those links...so you could do the math and see for yourself that the statement about $18K/year is specious at best. I know you didn't expect that I would do it for you given your "doubting Thomas" and willingness to put for the argument you have.

Yes, if the nation involved were spending USD, it could hire nine Chinese soldiers for one U.S. one. But the nations noted spend in their respective currencies and economies; thus such a comparison is sophistic. As I said, if one is going to make a comparison like the soldier salary one you and the article author put forth, a comparison that necessarily spans national boundaries, then one must make a relative comparison in order for the the matter of what each country pays its soldiers to have any relevance. So do the math. I did it before I posted my comments. Do it for yourself and you'll see the same things I did (assuming you do it accurately).

You certainly make a good point here. If we are not actually using our military to stop other countries from behaving badly, what ARE we doing with it?
I've always thought, since Iron Mountain, that the military spending is necessary to keep the American economy cranking. Is that now debunked?
Is there another way? If so, what is it?