Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guy, I've been in the DoD. I know what it involves.
Guy, I've worked for half a dozen law firms, doesn't make me a lawyer. Being "in" the DoD means nothing in the context of this discussion. Question is, should the DoD be cut 33-50% based on actual merit; as in do the benefits outweigh the costs of risking the potential for threat agents to exploit vulnerabilities in our national security? Overwhelming answer to this question is yes, monumentally inane to cut DoD spending by that much unless you can be specific.
The creation of government jobs does not justify government spending. Those same jobs could be used to build roads, dams, colleges, blah blah, whatever.
If gov't jobs outweigh the cost of gov't spending, then sorry, it does justify the spending.
Our global security concerns are certainly lower than they were during the cold war, and yet we are spending at cold war rates. This is simply a poor use of our funds.
How were our security concerns less troublesome during the Cold War when we're currently concerned with Red China on multiple fronts (having to buffer from an invasion of Taiwan, having to protect against dollar depreciation yuan peg), a possible reemergence of Russia (with Georgia invasion) and in-fighting about missiles in Poland, North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, and of course fighting multiple strains of nebulous enemies in the ME (insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syrian and Hezbollah aggression, etc.), countries with no defined borders and irrational politicians making it nearly impossible to negotiate. At least the Soviet Union actually engaged in rationality with the U.S.
Working in a law firm sure doesn't make you a lawyer, but it does give you the opportunity to learn their approximate HR budget. The reason I told you that is so that you can spare me your lectures about what makes up the DoD.
As far as your idea that our defense budget is somehow paying for the reduced potential of 'threat agents', you just made that up. I already told you how and why our defense spending is so high, and it has little to do with national security. It has to do with power projection, which is at best tangently related and has a hideously large cost/benefit ratio, one I believe cannot be supported. Hence, large cuts.
Now for the rest of your post:
1.) The reason China does not invade Taiwan is not based upon the fear of armed defeat by the United States. Even with our current military if we were to attempt to fight China there, we would lose. Our naval assets are not useful in the straights, we would be vulnerable to land based aircraft and anti-ship missiles, and China could effectively remove Taiwanese airbases within hours of conflict beginning. China does not go to war with Taiwan because China's relationship with the US is far more important. It is not a military matter, but a diplomatic/economic one. Oh, and I have no idea how the value of the Chinese currency is an issue the DoD will deal with. Are we bombing their printing presses?
2.) Russia is emerging as a regional threat to former Soviet republics, not the US. We long ago decided that we would not go to war over these countries, it is not in our national security interest to do so, and it is once again not based upon the size of our military. Russia will not dare to attack a member of NATO, and that is the primary vehicle we will use to check their expansion.
3.) Our military is not useful against North Korea's nuclear weapons.
4.) The leaders of the middle east are not irrational, you are simply falling for the same idiotic drivel that is always peddled about the enemies of the US. Negotiation is not only possible, but effective.
I'm sorry, but your reasons for having this gigantic military and your idea that it is 'monumentally insane' to cut back our out of control defense spending are based largely upon poor understanding of how and when we use our military and the expectations of foreign governments for how we use our military. The whole point is that with a much smaller budget we could defend our regional interests just as easily as we do now. What we would lose is the ability to switfly bomb places like Iran and Iraq. I for one, think taking those options out of the hands of future presidents would do us far more good than harm.