Quadrennial Defense Review

[cwjerome]

--Inspired by the airborne laser thread--

The 2010 QDR is out and it seems to be a do-it-all assessment that would prove to be totally unaffordable. Something has to give. The airborne laser is an example of a cutting edge R&D program that a lot of people would like to see continued, yet there are hundreds of interesting -and some very important- funding requirements. It's easy to say "keep the program" without regard to the big picture and cutting costs in other areas.

The QDR keeps the "fighting two large-scale wars simultaneously" scenario, but it also recommends a force that can handle a much wider range of missions in numerous global hotspots, continued perimeter security, peacekeeping, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions, while also planning for the big one, developing new technologies, and basically trying to prepare for every potential threat and contingency that the military is likely to face.

It's not realistic and it's impossible to determine what the priority is... there is nothing there that forces the services to make hard decisions. Instead of being critical and strategic about our force posture, the QDR seems to just say "do everything!" So when those decisions have to be made -and they will have to be made- there will be no basis or plan... it'll be a random mixture of cuts and adjustments, and that's not a way to shape the US military.

 

[Jaskalas]

--Inspired by the airborne laser thread--

The 2010 QDR is out and it seems to be a do-it-all assessment that would prove to be totally unaffordable.

800 Billion for the jobs bill should cover the costs of the jobs used to develop this laser.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nattering nabobs of negativity always crying about how we can't afford to protect ourselves. Grow a spine you simpering right wing girlie men.

 

[K1052]

It looks like the Navy got hit pretty bad. Only two Zumwalts, No CG(X), no new command ships, delayed carrier replacement, delayed F-35 procurement, etc...

 

[Craig234]

Or, we could buy a defense budget and slash the money, instead of an empire budget.

We have a corrupt military industry that is a very high-cost pet to keep. But the point isn't the expsense, so much as the fact what's called 'defense' matches what we can 'afford' more than what's 'defense'.

We continue to have a view that 'anything other than dominating the world and preventing the rise of any rival military power is 'defense''.

 

[nobodyknows]

Nattering nabobs of negativity always crying about how we can't afford to protect ourselves. Grow a spine you simpering right wing girlie men.

The way I se it is the problem with the right wingers is that the more we develope superior technology the tougher they act. Like internet tough guys, pushing buttons is real easy to do. The vast majority of them want nothing to do with the hands on part of war, they just want some nice cushy desk job in the name of national defense. America, fuck yeah!!

 

[Craig234]

The way I se it is the problem with the right wingers is that the more we develope superior technology the tougher they act. Like internet tough guys, pushing buttons is real easy to do. The vast majority of them want nothing to do with the hands on part of war, they just want some nice cushy desk job in the name of national defense. America, fuck yeah!!

And I think a large problem is the way the right links personal 'qualities' such as 'toughness' willing to do combat with the policies of the military, which should involve social justice, not addressing insecurity.

The military does not exist for right-wingers to 'prove themselves' by 'serving'. It reminds me of the old statement by Teddy Roosevelt that the country 'needed a war' for its general spirits.

Dominance gets to be an addicition. We're already at such a superior position to the rest of the world military it's absurd, yet people can't get enough dominance, if it prevents SOME tiny risk.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Or, we could buy a defense budget and slash the money, instead of an empire budget.

We have a corrupt military industry that is a very high-cost pet to keep. But the point isn't the expsense, so much as the fact what's called 'defense' matches what we can 'afford' more than what's 'defense'.

We continue to have a view that 'anything other than dominating the world and preventing the rise of any rival military power is 'defense''.

you have to admit - it's worked pretty well so far.

staying on top requires significantly larger amounts of money than #2, #3, even #5 or #10.

Our defense budget is larger than at least the next 10 combined and represents 41% of defense spending worldwide (according to wiki)

 

[K1052]

Or, we could buy a defense budget and slash the money, instead of an empire budget.

We have a corrupt military industry that is a very high-cost pet to keep. But the point isn't the expsense, so much as the fact what's called 'defense' matches what we can 'afford' more than what's 'defense'.

We continue to have a view that 'anything other than dominating the world and preventing the rise of any rival military power is 'defense''.

We let our military power almost fall apart after every war until the end of Korea, invariably to the detriment of our allies and ourselves.

 

[Craig234]

you have to admit - it's worked pretty well so far.

Hardly. But if you are blind to the problems it may look that way to you.

staying on top requires significantly larger amounts of money than #2, #3, even #5 or #10.

Our defense budget is larger than at least the next 10 combined and represents 41% of defense spending worldwide (according to wiki)

What we need is a stable global political system with distributed power and diversity, not dominance.

 

[Brainonska511]

We let our military power almost fall apart after every war until the end of Korea, invariably to the detriment of our allies and ourselves.

We can keep our military current without the huge expenditures we currently have.

 

[Craig234]

Has anyone read the book Bill Moyers said was his #1 2009 recommendation, "Nemesis" by Chalmers Johnson? The first two books in the series helped understand this issue very well.

 

[K1052]

We can keep our military current without the huge expenditures we currently have.

As a percentage of GDP our military spending is not hugely out of whack, given our commitments and the prosecution of two separate conflicts. With a period of relative peace we should be about to drop back to about 4% (instead of the nearly 5% we are at now).

 

[Craig234]

As a percentage of GDP our military spending is not hugely out of whack, given our commitments and the prosecution of two separate conflicts. With a period of relative peace we should be about to drop back to about 4% (instead of the nearly 5% we are at now).

What was the military % of GDP 1790-1940?

 

[woolfe9999]

Here is the QDR:

http://www.defense.gov/QDR/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf

- wolf

 

[K1052]

What was the military % of GDP 1790-1940?

Signifigantly less with exceptions for the Civil War, 1812, WW I etc..

Then again spending in the interim years would be minimal since historically the US nearly totally demobilized and mustered out it's forces. Something that repeatedly bit us in the ass.

 

[MotF Bane]

What we need is a stable global political system with distributed power and diversity, not dominance.

No, that is not what we need. That is what your ideology desires.

 

[Craig234]

Signifigantly less with exceptions for the Civil War, 1812, WW I etc..

Then again spending in the interim years would be minimal since historically the US nearly totally demobilized and mustered out it's forces. Something that repeatedly bit us in the ass.

That's pretty debatable. How many unnecessary wars have we fought since we had the military paid for and sitting around (or as Albright put it, what good is the big shiny military if we can't use it?)

How many wars did we need to fight where we were 'bit in the ass' is one question, but a better one is how much are we overspending now past what we need not to get 'bit in the ass'?

For a century, our military has been the 'armed forces of corporate interests' in great part, economic superiority through force in the world. Because it's anathema to say that, you may not realize it.

Do I need to quote Smedley Butler? Do you need to read books on dozens of modern conflicts with that agenda?

We can easily defend ourselves with a fraction of our military spending, but it's one more 'powerful economic interest' that can politically ensure the waste.

Again, the best way to ensure peace and freedom in the world is not to be the de facto ruler of the world with the inherent rebellion, injustice, expense, but to support global political distribution of power.

The alternative, which is far more likely, is some form of 'one world government' for the first time in human history, and if you need to be told the dangers to the freedom of many of that....

Any time you have concentrated political power, there is big pressure to use it for the benefit of one group at the expense of others. Maybe that's in the form one group having another as slaves or cheap labor domestically. Maybe it's having one group keep another serving up its resources and labor cheaply for the benefit of the first through the enforcement of poverty. Maybe it's the northern hemisphere exploiting the southern. Maybe it's the Saudis exploitiing other nationals, or the Sunnis under Saddam exploiting the majority Shia - not to mention the separatist Kurds. It's always a temptation.

You will find such economic exploitation at the middle of war after war, when people have 'had enough', but you will find it even more often simply in peaceful tyranny enforcing the injustice.

A first step is just understanding that it's going on rather than thinking each of our or others' wars is about 'freedom'. It's not good enough to say 'there's exploitation I can ignore, but we're winning so it's ok'.

 

[K1052]

Again, the best way to ensure peace and freedom in the world is not to be the de facto ruler of the world with the inherent rebellion, injustice, expense, but to support global political distribution of power.

The alternative, which is far more likely, is some form of 'one world government' for the first time in human history, and if you need to be told the dangers to the freedom of many of that....

While you're at it why don't go for cold fusion and immortality?

To represent such a monumentally difficult (read: impossible) proposition as a serious alternative is naive idealism at it's peak, which perhaps is even more dangerous than all the ill intent I can fathom.

 

[Elias824]

Craig your insane political ideology is thoroughly hilarious. Also you people know the VAST amount that we spend on the military is mostly spent on wages for soldiers and officers, as well as maintenance, R&D is a small part of military spending.
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion
Military Personnel $154.2 billion
Procurement $140.1 billion
R&D, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion
Military Construction $23.9 billion
Family Housing $3.1 billion
Total Spending $685.1 billion

 

[cwjerome]

Again, the best way to ensure peace and freedom in the world is not to be the de facto ruler of the world with the inherent rebellion, injustice, expense, but to support global political distribution of power.

The alternative, which is far more likely, is some form of 'one world government' for the first time in human history, and if you need to be told the dangers to the freedom of many of that....

Although I prefer not to respond to you Craig, that's just crazy talk. Naive, silly, crazy talk... the kind of talk the fringe might make when they poke their noses out from behind their books and magazines, which make it all sound so good on paper. You have to start with the reality that exists, not the reality you desire.

The old cliche "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. I don't argue your endstate is somewhat noble. But there is no plausible path to global government in sight and steps taken now in defiance of that stubborn fact would certainly lead to a more hazardous world. You're a dangerous radical, willing to plunge this world into chaos for your dreams.

 

[Craig234]

While you're at it why don't go for cold fusion and immortality?

To represent such a monumentally difficult (read: impossible) proposition as a serious alternative is naive idealism at it's peak, which perhaps is even more dangerous than all the ill intent I can fathom.

It's no more impossible than finding 300 million people in 50 states can get along without going to war with one another in the US for over a century, something that seems 'impossible' elsewhere - or here in 1860.

The thing is, no one has tried. All of mankind's efforts have gone into the well being of each region in the competition with others.

No doubt the common reaction to our founding fathers pursuing that crazy John Locke instead of tried and proven forms of government was that they were 'naive' and it was 'impossible'. After all, democracy had a very ignoble history of failure in human history to that point. And they were right - our first try, the articles of confederation. Democracy could have gone down with that as more 'proof' it can't work.

But it did. The nonsense such global political change is impossible is just short-sightedness.

Yet I do predict that, just as the US democracy was unlikely, the most likely outcome globally is not what would serve the people, but a power-based system of new tyranny, as the combination of global concentrated economic power private and government colludes to prevent the people from reigning it in, marking an end to the experiment of the democracy of the use, continuing it in a reduced form that's a mockery as the people are allowed to choose who geta a holiday and the national bird, while economic policy is removed from their hands.

 

[K1052]

It's no more impossible than finding 300 million people in 50 states can get along without going to war with one another in the US for over a century, something that seems 'impossible' elsewhere - or here in 1860.

The thing is, no one has tried. All of mankind's efforts have gone into the well being of each region in the competition with others.

No doubt the common reaction to our founding fathers pursuing that crazy John Locke instead of tried and proven forms of government was that they were 'naive' and it was 'impossible'. After all, democracy had a very ignoble history of failure in human history to that point. And they were right - our first try, the articles of confederation. Democracy could have gone down with that as more 'proof' it can't work.

But it did. The nonsense such global political change is impossible is just short-sightedness.

Yet I do predict that, just as the US democracy was unlikely, the most likely outcome globally is not what would serve the people, but a power-based system of new tyranny, as the combination of global concentrated economic power private and government colludes to prevent the people from reigning it in, marking an end to the experiment of the democracy of the use, continuing it in a reduced form that's a mockery as the people are allowed to choose who geta a holiday and the national bird, while economic policy is removed from their hands.

Our constitutional republic is a direct descendant of the British system and of the enlightenment. It was not nearly as radical as you suggest.

Direct democracies are invariably failures and the founders were more than aware of this which is why they went far out of their way not to build one.

Also when the US came into being it was about 2 million in population and most of those being British subjects so it's not like the population was all that diverse. You are vastly underestimating the difficulties of your proposal.

 

[Craig234]

Our constitutional republic is a direct descendant of the British system and of the enlightenment. It was not nearly as radical as you suggest.

That's more wrong than right. THe British system had a long road from 'monarchy' to 'constitutional monarchy' that's basically a Republic, but it was a big leap the Americans took. THe British Monarchy (and the French, for that matter) was still very strong at the time, while republics were very weak in history. Thomas Paine was in no small part responsile for the founding fathers making this leap - only a brief time before they were focusing their efforts not on independance but relaxed policies. Paine then went to England to say 'get rid of the monarchy' and was convicted of treason, then fled to France where he marched for the overthrow of the monarchy there, that led to the French revolution. (Ironically, Paine pleaded with the leaders to exile rather than execute the king, and was put in prison himself as a result).

The founding fathers were further influenced by the Native Americans - especially the Iriquious, with whom Benjamin Franklin lived to study their government that influenced ours quite a bit.

What we did bring down more from the British was the legal system.

Direct democracies are invariably failures and the founders were more than aware of this which is why they went far out of their way not to build one.

Don't bring up the dishonest red herring dinstinction between technical definitions of democracy. When someone says democracy, unless they say otherwise, they mean representative democracy, i.e., republic.

To say anything else is disengenuous and wasteful.

 

[K1052]

That's more wrong than right. THe British system had a long road from 'monarchy' to 'constitutional monarchy' that's basically a Republic, but it was a big leap the Americans took. THe British Monarchy (and the French, for that matter) was still very strong at the time, while republics were very weak in history. Thomas Paine was in no small part responsile for the founding fathers making this leap - only a brief time before they were focusing their efforts not on independance but relaxed policies. Paine then went to England to say 'get rid of the monarchy' and was convicted of treason, then fled to France where he marched for the overthrow of the monarchy there, that led to the French revolution. (Ironically, Paine pleaded with the leaders to exile rather than execute the king, and was put in prison himself as a result).

The founding fathers were further influenced by the Native Americans - especially the Iriquious, with whom Benjamin Franklin lived to study their government that influenced ours quite a bit.

What we did bring down more from the British was the legal system.



Don't bring up the dishonest red herring dinstinction between technical definitions of democracy. When someone says democracy, unless they say otherwise, they mean representative democracy, i.e., republic.

To say anything else is disengenuous and wasteful.

A lot of that road had been traversed by the 1780s. The US had the advantage of no royal linage to claim power, thus the need to elect an executive. The rest of the system is similar in many respects, particularly the bill of rights which lifted heavily from the Magna Carta. Franklin also had little to do with the actual writing of the Constitution although he was a delegate.

Do not attempt to chastise me for using the correct terminology after you claimed "democracy had a very ignoble history of failure in human history to that point" which clearly would not include republics (representative or otherwise).