Slashing the military budget

[Saigon]

The US military budget is more than quadruple that of any other country.

The US spends more money than all of the other ten biggest spending countries combined - at least 7 of which are firm allies. In fact, 41% of all defence spending in the world is spent by the US.

The US spends more as a % of GDP than any other country except Saudi Arabia - whose total budget is around 7% of that of the US.

I think this is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I don't honestly think it is a question of defending US interests as much as funding defence contractors.

I can totally understand that the US feels it needs to have the edge of China and Russia - but having an edge should not mean you have to triple their spending.

The US could easily slash 25% of its defence budget without compromising safety and security an inch. You could close the bases in Germany and maybe Japan for a start.

Cutting 25% would mean a saving $177 billion per year - money that could be better spent to pay off debt, surely.

Do you agree?

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree that you are an uninformed idiot. Unfortunately your posts are not ignorant enough to qualify you as Chief Dunce. Although I admit the bar is very high.
The cost to being the world's superpower is high. But like divorce, it costs a lot because it's worth it.

 

[Rocko]

Worry about Finland's military budget.

 

[konradv]

There's a lot of fat in that budget. Especially, when members of both parties vote for things the military doesn't even want, because it helps their state.

 

[there4eyeM]

The modern age has evolved new aspects of military action and capacities. The fascination with huge, complex and vulnerable weapon systems is largely misplaced. Much more can be done today with much less.
Aircraft carriers, for example, make wonderful and spectacular targets. Technology has already taught us that manned fighter planes are less and less necessary and at the same time more and more expensive. Offering a potential enemy such a prize is questionable.
Main battle tanks could also be cheaper, smaller, lighter, faster, consume less, go further if remotely guided.
Drones and robots could replace ground troops in many situations and augment them in many more.
There are and must be new ways to look at the military situation. Of course, the best situation is to have as few enemies as possible.

Peace is cheaper than war.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Slashing the military budget at a time when Russia and China are quickly increasing theirs=stupid.

You'll never know when you need a powerful military. All of europe and Japan, Tawain, South Korea might need us.

I agree with replacing some of our airforce with drones, unmanned bombers, ect. Unmanned tanks for the ground...

Logical next step.

 

[konradv]

The cost to being the world's superpower is high. But like divorce, it costs a lot because it's worth it.

How about putting some meat on that bone? It's worth it? Prove it.

 

[Saigon]

There's a lot of fat in that budget. Especially, when members of both parties vote for things the military doesn't even want, because it helps their state.

That must be a big issue for states that have Boeing, Lockheed etc.

In one way I can understand politicians wanting those jobs, but it's not really free enterprise if the army doesn't need what they get given.

 

[Saigon]

Slashing the military budget at a time when Russia and China are quickly increasing theirs=stupid.

.

Really?

And yet Russia and China's budget combined is 210 billion.

The US spends more than 700 billion.

Why is that necessary?

 

[Moonglow]

What the US is doing by it's large military expendature is setting up the USof A for it's own demise, just as all previous super powers have experienced. But, at the moment, the military of the US enforces global economics that are a benefit to the US economy.

 

[Saigon]

The cost to being the world's superpower is high. But like divorce, it costs a lot because it's worth it.

How is spending $500 billion more than any other country "worth it"?

How were military fiascos like Somalia or Iraw "worth it"?

Do you really not think the US might ultimately have benefitted more by channeling $100 billion per year more into imrpoved schools, debt reduction or infrastructure instead of searching for WMD?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The US military budget is more than quadruple that of any other country.

The US spends more money than all of the other ten biggest spending countries combined - at least 7 of which are firm allies. In fact, 41% of all defence spending in the world is spent by the US.

The US spends more as a % of GDP than any other country except Saudi Arabia - whose total budget is around 7% of that of the US.

I think this is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I don't honestly think it is a question of defending US interests as much as funding defence contractors.

I can totally understand that the US feels it needs to have the edge of China and Russia - but having an edge should not mean you have to triple their spending.

The US could easily slash 25% of its defence budget without compromising safety and security an inch. You could close the bases in Germany and maybe Japan for a start.

Cutting 25% would mean a saving $177 billion per year - money that could be better spent to pay off debt, surely.

Do you agree?

That’s much of it, yes.

It also has to do with the fact the US government doesn’t trust the rest of the world to police itself; it’s an article of religious faith that without American military strength always in the background, the world would be plunged into constant and destructive conflict.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...without American military strength always in the background, the world would be plunged into constant and destructive conflict."

Without any antagonism toward the poster, this contrasts how with the actual state of things?

 

[Saigon]

"...without American military strength always in the background, the world would be plunged into constant and destructive conflict."

Without any antagonism toward the poster, this contrasts how with the actual state of things?

He didn't say he believed that - he said it was an article of faith, and I agree with him.

Back in 1950 the belief had some validity, but these days most of the US's allies can defend themselves quite adequately, and work with the US on international actions where appropriate.

Much of the threat to the US comes in the form of terror these days - for which you only need a limited amount of ICBMs or aircraft carriers anyway.

 

[editec]

The US military budget is more than quadruple that of any other country.

The US spends more money than all of the other ten biggest spending countries combined - at least 7 of which are firm allies. In fact, 41% of all defence spending in the world is spent by the US.

The US spends more as a % of GDP than any other country except Saudi Arabia - whose total budget is around 7% of that of the US.

I think this is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I don't honestly think it is a question of defending US interests as much as funding defence contractors.

I can totally understand that the US feels it needs to have the edge of China and Russia - but having an edge should not mean you have to triple their spending.

The US could easily slash 25% of its defence budget without compromising safety and security an inch. You could close the bases in Germany and maybe Japan for a start.

Cutting 25% would mean a saving $177 billion per year - money that could be better spent to pay off debt, surely.

Do you agree?

No I don't.

But I disagree for macroeconomic reasons rather than because I am a hawk.

If we simply slash the military budget we will throw the economy into a tailspin in the immediate term.

Now in the longer run that will be a good thing, but only if we HAVE a longer run, which I do not think will happen if the economy completely collapses.

I object to blindly imposing AUSTERITY regardless of what is slashed from the budget.

MASSIVE cutting of spending (NOW) would be (will be?) a terrible mistake for the US macro-economy.


The REAL solution to this nations long term economic woes is to do something about the way we introduce NEW SPECIE into the economy via borrowing that NEW MONEY money from the FED.

Our MONETARY system is fucked up from the getgo.

Slahsing welfare, or SS or the MILIARY is exactly the WRONG THING TO DO.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The US military budget is more than quadruple that of any other country.

The US spends more money than all of the other ten biggest spending countries combined - at least 7 of which are firm allies. In fact, 41% of all defence spending in the world is spent by the US.

The US spends more as a % of GDP than any other country except Saudi Arabia - whose total budget is around 7% of that of the US.

I think this is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I don't honestly think it is a question of defending US interests as much as funding defence contractors.

I can totally understand that the US feels it needs to have the edge of China and Russia - but having an edge should not mean you have to triple their spending.

The US could easily slash 25% of its defence budget without compromising safety and security an inch. You could close the bases in Germany and maybe Japan for a start.

Cutting 25% would mean a saving $177 billion per year - money that could be better spent to pay off debt, surely.

Do you agree?

No I don't.

But I disagree for macroeconomic reasons rather than because I am a hawk.

If we simply slash the military budget we will throw the economy into a tailspin in the immediate term.

Now in the longer run that will be a good thing, but only if we HAVE a longer run, which I do not think will happen if the economy completely collapses.

I object to blindly imposing AUSTERITY regardless of what is slashed from the budget.

MASSIVE cutting of spending (NOW) would be (will be?) a terrible mistake for the US macro-economy.


The REAL solution to this nations long term economic woes is to do something about the way we introduce NEW SPECIE into the economy via borrowing that NEW MONEY money from the FED.

Our MONETARY system is fucked up from the getgo.

Slahsing welfare, or SS or the MILIARY is exactly the WRONG THING TO DO.

Indeed, in essence military spending is a form of welfare.

 

[Billo_Really]

I agree that you are an uninformed idiot. Unfortunately your posts are not ignorant enough to qualify you as Chief Dunce. Although I admit the bar is very high.
The cost to being the world's superpower is high. But like divorce, it costs a lot because it's worth it.

How is paying the Taliban to guard our convoys to remote outposts in Afghanistan, worth it?

How is spending $15/gal for gas in Afghanistan, worth it?

How is spending US tax dollars for re-construction projects in someone else's country, while ours is falling apart, worth it?

You wanna fuckin' answer those questions, asshole?

 

[Billo_Really]

We spend all this money to create the most powerful military the world has ever seen, yet we can't beat a few jihadists using RPG's and IED's.

 

[Saigon]

No I don't.

But I disagree for macroeconomic reasons rather than because I am a hawk.

If we simply slash the military budget we will throw the economy into a tailspin in the immediate term.

Now in the longer run that will be a good thing, but only if we HAVE a longer run, which I do not think will happen if the economy completely collapses.

I object to blindly imposing AUSTERITY regardless of what is slashed from the budget.

MASSIVE cutting of spending (NOW) would be (will be?) a terrible mistake for the US macro-economy.


The REAL solution to this nations long term economic woes is to do something about the way we introduce NEW SPECIE into the economy via borrowing that NEW MONEY money from the FED.

Our MONETARY system is fucked up from the getgo.

Slahsing welfare, or SS or the MILIARY is exactly the WRONG THING TO DO.

But surely there are more ways of more effectively stimulating the economy and creating jobs than just building military hardware that may never be used and isn't needed.

Why not spend the same money on R&D in electronics, cars or energy and actually try and create something sustainable and genuinely helpful to the private sector?

I agree in military cuts need to consider jobs, but at the end of the day those jobs are all public sector positioons and come out of your taxes.

 

[there4eyeM]

Those who are so vigorous in defense of the original concepts of the nation should find it difficult to agree with current military doctrine and application.