Do we really need this big of a military?

[Murloc]

the US spending allows the US to have global force projection.

You could comfortably cut spending and still be able to defend yourself against any other country on earth, but not by as much as it seems because you have to be able to defend places an ocean away like the Hawaiis and American Samoa so the carriers and the big fleet are still needed.
So the pricey equipment has to stay to some point.

I think the operations in Syria under Obama are a good example of how you can achieve objectives by spending less and also having less dead soldiers. Of course, that means you don't get to achieve the stuff that Hillary wanted to achieve, regime change in syria is not going to happen.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

It takes a long time to research and bring new military equipment and programs online. If we stop our military research and development now, it will be too lake start it back up when and if we do need it.
.

Start it back up to fight whom? What world are you living in that you think that cutting our military spending by 33% to 50% makes us vulnerable to any other military in the world? Or any two combined. Or any three? If we cut a third of our spending, $200 billion a year we're still spending $400 billion a year. That's more than China, Russia, the UK, France, India and Japan combined.

 

[pauldun170]

A lot of it is spent here first. F-15s are still bought from Boeing and made around here somewhere.

Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, South Korea. Couple of just made a couple of deals to refresh\replace their fleets.

Always funny listening to people complain about 80 -120 Million dollar F-35's when modern new build F-15's range from 130 Million to 160+ Million.
To a replace an antiquated F-15E 10 years ago that was missing all the modern stuff that's a requirement nowadays still cost closet 108 million 2006 dollars
That's for a design that dates back to the late 1960's.
Unfortunately, too many people rely on the internet's lazy section filled with quick trips to wikipedia or some dumbass blog that relies on wikipedia.

 

[pauldun170]

Start it back up to fight whom? What world are you living in that you think that cutting our military spending by 33% to 50% makes us vulnerable to any other military in the world? Or any two combined. Or any three? If we cut a third of our spending, $200 billion a year we're still spending $400 billion a year. That's more than China, Russia, the UK, France, India and Japan combined.

We went through a short period where cutting programs left and right.
When the Soviets went belly up.

In terms of spending we are not bad considering the size of the country and our GDP
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...015&start=1988&view=chart&year_high_desc=true
We are not the biggest
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-armies-map.html
Our defense industry is one of the leading suppliers of arms to the rest of the world.
We are superpower that provides protection and stability throughout the world. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we screw up.
At least we fucking try.

If you want to reduce spending, stop electing politicians that commit our armed forces to bullshit in the middle east.
Decide if you want China or Russia to fill in the gaps we leave when we pull back.
Decide if the extra entitlements provided veterans are truly worth it when all they are doing is "Protecting Murica and its borders" (meaning doing crap comparable to what life was like in the reserves in the 70's and 80's.)

Either way, modern combat systems are complicated and cost time and money to develop.
Complaining about the price of equipment without understanding WHY these things are being developed, HOW they fit in the big picture, HOW the costs are calculated and WHAT are the risks of d not investing in it is stupid.
People treat costs like they do cars
"My parents bought an Accord for $4000 in 1978 therefore its a BOONDOGGLE that a modern Honda Accord could cost 35K."
Its not even close.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

I think I spoke rather specifically:

1. Most Americans have never had to fight for anything, so they don't see the need for a strong military until it's too late.
Never looked at a YouTube video of Walmart on BlackFriday?
2. If we cut our military too much and do end up needing to fight a war, it will be too late to start trying to build one up at that point.
That was the case at the start of WW2 for the USA. And still we kicked butt and conquered all axis powers.
3. The American military is currently rather inefficient and wasteful. Streamlining and optimizing our military will save us tons of money, and is a better way to stretch our defense dollar vs. just wholesale shutting research, operations and units down.
Currently? When has it ever been efficient?
4. Very few of us around here are actually qualified to judge how small a military we can get away with and still safeguard America and her interests around the world.
You are correct and yet a study done and then kept hidden in 2015 showed how we could save tens of billions of dollars in the military establishment from some rather simple and short-term changes. But the military declined, hid the report until it got out.
I don't agree that the U.S. Military will eventually have to step down or fall down as the major superpower on the planet. I do believe we could better pick our battles, but who will bear the lion's share of keeping the global peace if we don't?
That is just it. If you are not willing to defend your land then you are enslaved to someone that will. How many countries have we seen not willing to fight for their own country?
That said, if we are willing to deal with the consequences of doing so, go ahead and bring all our military home, downsize and simply secure the US boarders. We can become isolationists and see how that works for everybody.
Not saying the 2014 information on Wikipedia can be trusted, but only ~$10 Billion of total Fed Foreign Aid was military. ~70-75% was in other forms. Which are you suggesting, the removal of foreign aid specific to military aid or the bigger piece of foreign aid would have the impact of potential above?

 

[pauldun170]

We went through a short period where cutting programs left and right.
When the Soviets went belly up.

In terms of spending we are not bad considering the size of the country and our GDP
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...015&start=1988&view=chart&year_high_desc=true
We are not the biggest
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-armies-map.html
Our defense industry is one of the leading suppliers of arms to the rest of the world.
We are superpower that provides protection and stability throughout the world. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we screw up.
At least we fucking try.
We are the worlds most powerful military because we have the money and talent while accepting responsibility for global stability.
Looking at world history and seeing out little slice of the pie, I'd say we've done a fine job.

If you want to reduce spending, stop electing politicians that commit our armed forces to bullshit in the middle east.
Decide if you want China or Russia to fill in the gaps we leave when we pull back.
Decide if the extra entitlements provided veterans are truly worth it when all they are doing is "Protecting Murica and its borders" (meaning doing crap comparable to what life was like in the reserves in the 70's and 80's.)

Either way, modern combat systems are complicated and cost time and money to develop.
Complaining about the price of equipment without understanding WHY these things are being developed, HOW they fit in the big picture, HOW the costs are calculated and WHAT are the risks of d not investing in it is stupid.
People treat costs like they do cars
"My parents bought an Accord for $4000 in 1978 therefore its a BOONDOGGLE that a modern Honda Accord could cost 35K."
Its not even close.

 

[deustroop]

You guys gotta spend the cash so Canada doesn't need to spend any.
Thx,
All Canadians Love You.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

We went through a short period where cutting programs left and right.
When the Soviets went belly up.

In terms of spending we are not bad considering the size of the country and our GDP
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...015&start=1988&view=chart&year_high_desc=true
We are not the biggest
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-armies-map.html
Our defense industry is one of the leading suppliers of arms to the rest of the world.
We are superpower that provides protection and stability throughout the world. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we screw up.
At least we fucking try.

If you want to reduce spending, stop electing politicians that commit our armed forces to bullshit in the middle east.
Decide if you want China or Russia to fill in the gaps we leave when we pull back.
Decide if the extra entitlements provided veterans are truly worth it when all they are doing is "Protecting Murica and its borders" (meaning doing crap comparable to what life was like in the reserves in the 70's and 80's.)

Either way, modern combat systems are complicated and cost time and money to develop.
Complaining about the price of equipment without understanding WHY these things are being developed, HOW they fit in the big picture, HOW the costs are calculated and WHAT are the risks of d not investing in it is stupid.
People treat costs like they do cars
"My parents bought an Accord for $4000 in 1978 therefore its a BOONDOGGLE that a modern Honda Accord could cost 35K."
Its not even close.

You're a freaking idiot. The military convinced the country that they needed a pretty much unlimited budget because the Russians had a virtually unlimited budget. They were building nonstop and we had to do the same. Well Russia went tits-up, so why are we still building? Who the fuck are we arming against?

Yeah, military programs are expensive and product development takes time. Guess what? THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE ELSE TOO!! Russia, China and the UK can't wave a magic wand and develop anything or build anything in sufficient quantity overnight. For them to reach our level would take a decade of non-stop spending and arming up. They're not doing it. So why are you suggesting we keep building to counter a threat that doesn't exist and can't exist until into the mid 2020's at the earliest. I'm going to ask again, WHO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE FIGHTING THAT REQUIRES THIS LEVEL OF SPENDING? Why are we spending more than the next 15 countries combined? Are you truly so paranoid that spending more than the next 10 countries combined gives you the willies and makes you feel we're not spending enough?

 

[Thebobo]

You want the truth?

I can't handle the truth ?

 

[Ruptga]

shit's getting real now.

 

[deustroop]

Who the fuck are we arming against?

Why are we spending more than the next 15 countries combined?

Leave aside why the armed forces are so wealthy for a minute.

I wonder whether the money is well spent ? First class is ok if necessary (and I know that's your point, it's not!) but I see signs of incompetence which worry me more.

First the Air Force. Even Trump can see the problem with that service.One phone call gets him a reduction in price ? I want him to call my landlord when he gets a minute.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/23/news/lockheed-martin-trump-response/index.html

Then the US Navy. Now I am favourable to the US Armed Forces, only a little less than to our own, but fuck me sideways, the US Navy has become a joke. Recall that incident where a boatload of navy seamen were off course in Iranian waters and didn't know it, and their commanding officer didn't know it ( and was relieved) and when detained by the Iranian Navy, the sailors cowered like pups in a basket ? Nice.

And now this same Navy, with nuclear shit everywhere, SEAL teams up the Yahoo, allows some pos chinese sailors to take their underwater equipment ? Ronald Regan just pissed himself to death again. You guys may have much bigger problems than over supplied hardware.

Can new hardware make up for weak or no leadership ? Nugatory.

Now maybe I'm just a deluded anti jihadist but the last time the US armed forces were this overconfident and unknowingly unprepared was Dec, 1941.

 

[OverVolt]

I was about to mention, much like drugs, we do the actual R&D and sell to other countries.

 

[Murloc]

Then the US Navy. Now I am favourable to the US Armed Forces, only a little less than to our own, but fuck me sideways, the US Navy has become a joke. Recall that incident where a boatload of navy seamen were off course in Iranian waters and didn't know it, and their commanding officer didn't know it ( and was relieved) and when detained by the Iranian Navy, the sailors cowered like pups in a basket ? Nice.

And now this same Navy, with nuclear shit everywhere, SEAL teams up the Yahoo, allows some pos chinese sailors to take their underwater equipment ? Ronald Regan just pissed himself to death again. You guys may have much bigger problems than over supplied hardware.

Can new hardware make up for weak or no leadership ? Nugatory.

Now maybe I'm just a deluded anti jihadist but the last time the US armed forces were this overconfident and unknowingly unprepared was Dec, 1941.

nobody got hurt and no diplomatic incidents happened, so I think those reactions were appropriate.

 

[norseamd]

I get that we probably need the people, but do we need the equipment? I heard the F-35 program was a joke and a waste. I also understand that by building all this equipment it keeps Americans employed. I am just wondering what other peoples thoughts are

No, no, nope, nothing to see here.

 

[Sonikku]

The military when taken to excess such as it has is the Republican's own flavor of welfare. The only choice in this country is welfare for the poor or welfare for the rich. Perhaps a smart man could argue we cannot afford welfare to excess in either scenario, but that option no longer exists. I know which of the two that remain I choose.

 

[norseamd]

The military when taken to excess such as it has is the Republican's own flavor of welfare. The only choice in this country is welfare for the poor or welfare for the rich. Perhaps a smart man could argue we cannot afford welfare to excess in either scenario, but that option no longer exists. I know which of the two that remain I choose.

Lack of defense isnt an option, and long term the majority of the population being massively neglected and living in daily squalor is basically really isnt an option either.

 

[pauldun170]

You're a freaking idiot. The military convinced the country that they needed a pretty much unlimited budget because the Russians had a virtually unlimited budget. They were building nonstop and we had to do the same. Well Russia went tits-up, so why are we still building? Who the fuck are we arming against?

Yeah, military programs are expensive and product development takes time. Guess what? THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE ELSE TOO!! Russia, China and the UK can't wave a magic wand and develop anything or build anything in sufficient quantity overnight. For them to reach our level would take a decade of non-stop spending and arming up. They're not doing it. So why are you suggesting we keep building to counter a threat that doesn't exist and can't exist until into the mid 2020's at the earliest. I'm going to ask again, WHO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE FIGHTING THAT REQUIRES THIS LEVEL OF SPENDING? Why are we spending more than the next 15 countries combined? Are you truly so paranoid that spending more than the next 10 countries combined gives you the willies and makes you feel we're not spending enough?

No
I'm a grownup who has a grasp of the real world.

Look at spending world wide and focus on countries that do actual development. Real science.
Russia (5.0% GDP), France (3.5% GDP), United states (3.3% GDP) or example.
Compare that to countries that are pure consumers of military hardware (Most countries), those who underwrite development (Arab countries are typical) and those who leverage the work of countries who do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to research (China and India leverage work done by Russia, France and US)

Wars are won off the work of previous governments.
This isn't WWII where requirements and technology was simple and quick to spin up.
Look across the spectrum and you will find that development a lot of platforms date back to when your parents were children.
If you want to counter threats in the late 2020's you need to start work on solutions now.

You say "Stop" don't worry about it.
The rest of the world will gladly continue with development.

The case can be made to reduce scope and doctrine.
The case cannot be made for reducing capability.
Capability is what cost money. R&D cost money.

Unless you are proposing to stop all development, reduce the size of the military and just buy a handful of equipment from France, Brazil and China.
Many countries would love for us to do that.

 

[pauldun170]

I was about to mention, much like drugs, we do the actual R&D and sell to other countries.

Exactly.
We spend big on R&D and a lot of that investment is recouped on global sales.
Don't forget that the technology developed feeds down to the commercial\consumer sector.

 

[FelixDeCat]

We should cut defense spending 50% and use the difference to pay down the national debt. A better balance sheet gives America the flexibility to handle future crises.

 

[pauldun170]

We should cut defense spending 50% and use the difference to pay down the national debt. A better balance sheet gives America the flexibility to handle future crises.

National Debt would not be such a big deal if you elected leaders that weren't so fascinated with combat operations in the middle east.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/afp/warcosts.htm

George Bush Jr started the ball rolling with Gulf War I
Clinton continued with continuous combat operations against Iraq thoughtout the 90's
Bush continued with more fun in Iraq and Afghanistan
Obama continued that with additional shennigans with Syria.

The issue is not the weapons programs and how much things cost.
The issue is our fascination with the middle east.

In addition to the expenses related to combat operations, you end up with long term costs of shit wearing out and needing to replace them. You have veterans to care for. you have all sorts of long term impact.

 

[Sonikku]

Lack of defense isnt an option, and long term the majority of the population being massively neglected and living in daily squalor is basically really isnt an option either.

Hence the words "when taken to excess"

 

[Ruptga]

National Debt would not be such a big deal if you elected leaders that weren't so fascinated with combat operations in the middle east.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/afp/warcosts.htm

George Bush Jr started the ball rolling with Gulf War I
Clinton continued with continuous combat operations against Iraq thoughtout the 90's
Bush continued with more fun in Iraq and Afghanistan
Obama continued that with additional shennigans with Syria.

The issue is not the weapons programs and how much things cost.
The issue is our fascination with the middle east.

In addition to the expenses related to combat operations, you end up with long term costs of shit wearing out and needing to replace them. You have veterans to care for. you have all sorts of long term impact.

Can't argue with that, it's a major factor. There's enough oil coming out of Canada and the Dakotas that leaving the whole ME to go fuck itself is finally a viable option, maybe one day we'll have an administration with enough vision to see that. Energy would cost more, probably a lot more, but I would be very surprised if it wouldn't be a net savings for our society.

 

[norseamd]

National Debt would not be such a big deal if you elected leaders that weren't so fascinated with combat operations in the middle east.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/afp/warcosts.htm

George Bush Jr started the ball rolling with Gulf War I
Clinton continued with continuous combat operations against Iraq thoughtout the 90's
Bush continued with more fun in Iraq and Afghanistan
Obama continued that with additional shennigans with Syria.

The issue is not the weapons programs and how much things cost.
The issue is our fascination with the middle east.

In addition to the expenses related to combat operations, you end up with long term costs of shit wearing out and needing to replace them. You have veterans to care for. you have all sorts of long term impact.

There was nothing wrong with deciding to launch the Gulf War and come to the aid of the Kuwaitis. George H. W. Bush specifically refused to invade Iraq in the Gulf War. The man seems to be well loved in the geopolitics, military, and strategic community as someone who is considered a true realist.

Cant comment much on Clinton since I dont understand much about what was going on at the time since I was a kid, but the no-fly-zones were basically needed and well worth it, since it helped protect the Shiites and Kurds from Saddam Hussein. Its not like they costed anything like the 2 massive wars that George W. Bush launched either.

George W. Bush was the obvious disaster that got us to this point.

Obama made some good decisions to put a lot of focus on diplomacy, intelligence, and unmanned systems work, but he made a horrendous decision to withdraw from Iraq, and hes too timid and indecisive when dealing with global incidents. Even Operation Inherent Resolve has been too slow, too limited, and vigorous enough than it should have been. And thats not even counting his terrible responses to Russia and his terrible inability to deal with Turkey.

 

[norseamd]

Hence the words "when taken to excess"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html

 

[pauldun170]

There was nothing wrong with deciding to launch the Gulf War and come to the aid of the Kuwaitis. George H. W. Bush specifically refused to invade Iraq in the Gulf War. The man seems to be well loved in the geopolitics, military, and strategic community as someone who is considered a true realist.

Cant comment much on Clinton since I dont understand much about what was going on at the time since I was a kid, but the no-fly-zones were basically needed and well worth it, since it helped protect the Shiites and Kurds from Saddam Hussein. Its not like they costed anything like the 2 massive wars that George W. Bush launched either.

George W. Bush was the obvious disaster that got us to this point.

Obama made some good decisions to put a lot of focus on diplomacy, intelligence, and unmanned systems work, but he made a horrendous decision to withdraw from Iraq, and hes too timid and indecisive when dealing with global incidents. Even Operation Inherent Resolve has been too slow, too limited, and vigorous enough than it should have been. And thats not even counting his terrible responses to Russia and his terrible inability to deal with Turkey.

Some people might agree that there was nothing wrong. Some might disagree....
As long as everyone understands that there are real costs.

First Gulf war cost 100 billion (Inflation adjusted). We were lucky enough to have some of those costs paid back by other countries. So final cost was about 50 billion (adjusted).

It also impacted the downsizing of the US military that was underway when the cold war ended. This whole thread is about our "big military". Prior to Gulf War, No fly zones, military bases afghan Iraq war....etc etc. All the talk was about downsizing. As a result of PGWI, we shifted to a structure that would support 2 regional conflicts simultaneously.

No fly-zone ops cost 1-1.5 biillion per year (10+ years worth).

Post GWI the massive expansion and impact of US military bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Barhain as well as other countries cost billions per year to in terms of ops, maintenance staffing.

The bases in Saudi Arabia are directly responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda. Various bombings and attacks throughout the 90's and Afghan war . The Iraq war, being the formal conclusion of PWI added in as well. True cost of the Aghan and Iraq war has been estimated between 4-8 Trillion dollars including (ops, equipment, blah blah blah and lifetime costs of veteran care)

You can argue that there is nothing wrong with us intervening in regional conflicts.
You cannot argue about the impact.