What should US military spending be?

[ButterflyBlood]

we already know it's too much. so what percentage of the current spending should it be?

[IranianDemocrat]

1. No military whatsoever.

Just hold hands and sing for peace.

[Bandit]

2. How about half

And that isn't including black hole spending that no one knows anything about. Half would still be more than the next ten countries combined.

[wuushew]

3. Not only what we spend but what we spend it on

Get rid of all nuclear ballistic missile subs, missile defense, star wars programs, army crusader artillery program, reduce tank levels and a host of other waste.


I say a reduction of atleast half current levels

[Jose Diablo]

4. Not much

I cannot remember anytime in the last 55 years that we have not been at war with some country or another or getting ready for war.

We discover they cannot account for $3T. Uh, thats a big "T" there folks.

I think they manufactured the cold war to keep spending money all these years.

Who is benefiting from all of this? Try thinking about them as the 'muscle' men for corporations overseas. It is no wonder many, many people in other countries hate America.

Are we more secure? I think not. If there is not an enemy, then they will make sure one is manufactured.

I have heard how each local community around all these military bases depends so much on military spending to keep their commerce afloat.

Excuse me? Let me get this straight. We are taxed, then it is spent to fuel a local community. How is that efficient (sic?)?

Why not spend the money at a more basic level rather than flowing through first the Feds, then the military? Actually, there are far more productive ways to spend than the military. Ways to create real jobs and value.

What does one cruse missle cost in tax money? Then poof, in an instant its gone. How is real value created in this. It is wastefull and it kills, thus wasting whatever future value would have been created by those that are killed. Then we, us Americans, have to rebuild what was destroyed. Plus, we are guilty of allowing this to happen. Crap.

But now we find ourselves deep in another war. How can we get out? We cannot cut-off our sons and daughters in Iraq. Nor can we just leave.
What a mess that dipsh*t got us in.

I still think it was MIHOP.

[BeFree]

9. Good one, Jellybean1

I hope everyone takes the time to read your post.

Welcome to DU!

[sandnsea]

5. No nukes, bio or chem; no sdi

Start there. It's going to take ten years to burn sarin in Alabama while we're already allocating more money to study other biological weapons. :crazy:

[incontrovertible]

27. um

I'm personally not at all comfortable unilaterally disarming when China is in a balls-out weapons and space race with us, has openly threatened to nuke Los Angeles on several occasions if we dare uphold our treaties with Taiwain, claims possession of the whole of the South China Sea, and has structured its entire military around the goal of crossing the Straits.

Failing a democratic insurrection, I fully expect a tactical nuclear war with China within my lifetime. Whether it turns into a strategic nuclear war depends mainly on when it begins, but trust me, you're not going to want to see New York, Los Angeles, D.C., Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Chicago, Denver, etc. vaporized, and have the U.S. be powerless to retaliate.

There will never be a Democratic Presidential candidate who comes out in favor of unilateral nuclear disarmament. If there is, that candidate will be defeated in all fifty states. Even Jimmy Carter updated the Minutemen missile fleet. Even. Jimmy. Carter.

[wuushew]

28. Please provide evidence of China's "balls out arms race"

Also the text of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty



The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter referred to as the "Parties to the Treaty",

Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make
every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war,

In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the
prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,

Undertaking to cooperate in facilitating the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on peaceful
nuclear activities,

Expressing their support for research, development and other efforts to further the application, within the framework of
the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system, of the principle of safeguarding effectively the flow of source
and special fissionable materials by use of instruments and other techniques at certain strategic points,

Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological
by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should
be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties of the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon States,

Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible
exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further
development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

Urging the cooperation of all States in the attainment of this objective

[incontrovertible]

29. oh, man

do you not read the trades?

http://www.csis.org/pacfor/pac0020.html

http://www.nti.org/db/china/doctrine.htm

http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/chinaintel.htm

http://cns.miis.edu/research/china/coxrep/wdsmdat.htm

http://tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/214/other/news/090799china-nuke.html

[Terwilliger]

6. 20

maybe 25

[toddzilla]

8. i like japan's system

true defense only.. nothing that goes past a certain radius..

think about it.. you drive all the way across town and shoot some criminal. when the cops get there they ask you what is going on.


"i was defending my home officer!"

"which one of these houses is yours?"

"well, i live across town"

"you have the right to remain silent"


why should it be any different for countries...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. We need much more defense spending

We need to raise pay for soldiers, we need to provide better health care, and we need better retirement for our veterans. We need to get rid of the corporate welfare and sweetheart deals for crony companies like Halliburton and Bechtel, that way we won't have to raise taxes and hopefully save enough to give us better services and a middle class tax cut.

We need more technology, and we can do that more efficiently by bringing it in house instead of outsourcing everything. Remember, the technology saves soldier's lives. Let's cut back the layers of beauracracy at the defense companies at the Pentagon - get rid of the corporate management and lobbyists and investors, and save a bundle.

[edward]

10. Thanks for the link.

saved a lot of energy.

[TheBigGuy]

14. I dont know if I agree w. u re outsourcing.

We need more technology, and we can do that more efficiently by bringing it in house instead of outsourcing everything. Remember, the technology saves soldier's lives. Let's cut back the layers of beauracracy at the defense companies at the Pentagon - get rid of the corporate management and lobbyists and investors, and save a bundle.

I think outsourcing, if done right, can save money as it should be based on competetive bidding to a set of sepcifications and performance levels. In theory this saves money as the most efficient bidder is the lowest bidder.

And I do agree about the layers of bureaucracy. There is really ALOT of waste involved in paperpushing with the various defense bureaucracys.

But the big costs is that technology has become so advanced that it is almost unaffordable. I mean, can we really afford a full procurment of a weapon system as costly as the F22?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

26. we don't want corporations and investors taking a payoff from our defence

Teams of engineers can bid for jobs, certainly, but we don't need a corporate bureaucracy that pays off investors with tax money, and interferes with the engineer's health care and paychecks.

[AP]

11. Key is to take the private profit out of it.

If the military budget went up, but none of it went to to buying over-priced T-rations for soldiers in combat, and less of it went to paying Haliburton to rebuild oil fields and put out oil fires, I'd be very happy. We'd have a better military, with more money going to working class soldiers and to REAL defenses which serve to protect national security.

[TheBigGuy]

12. How Much is Enough...

...that was the name of a book that was written by Alain Enthoven, who became one of McNamaras OSD whiz kids.

Its an old question re defense spending.

The question really should be "What should the force structure and composition be?", and then size the force. That will yield you the amount of defense spending you need,

If you look at defense spending as a % of GDP we are not doing too bad in that spending is less than 10% of GDP and has been for some time. It is actually lower now than it was during the 1950s (one wonders if the relatively high levels of defense spending back then are what prompted Eisenhowers remarks re the military industrial complex in his farewell speech).

[wuushew]

13. Be very careful with that argument

That is the same argument shrub uses when referring to the national debt(size of GDP). I like to think of everything as an opportunity cost, such as x number of poor families that could have had health care.

[TheBigGuy]

16. Well..yeah..if you look at constand dollars...

...you have to wonder if we are still spending way too much. The defense spending as % of GDP is a good illustration of potential economic impact of defense spending...the impact it has on the economy or its signifigance.

Here are some good graphs that should raise a few eybrows (theyre .pdf)

http://www.csbaonline.org/

Take a loot at the National Defense Budget Authority and Outlays graphs...we are spending at cold war levels, still. Tough to justify this.

on edit..here is the "frames window" w. the hypertext to defense spending trend graphs:

http://www.csbaonline.org/3Defense_Budget/2Tables_Graphs/Tables_Graphs.htm

[JohnKleeb]

15. not sure

but we will need to increase pay and benefits and have pretty good technology but please no nuclear, chemical, or biological or at least try to cut back on em.

[StandWatie]

17. Whatever the second competitor is..

:shrug:

[wuushew]

19. Time for some figures

[TheBigGuy]

20. That pie chart is pretty usefull.

note that of the descretionary spending DoD gets about half....this is money that could go to HUD or to the National Parks or DOT for transportation projects....just some examples of where defense spending crowds out other things.

[wuushew]

21. Try out this site

I was going to post the "what your military dollar can buy" but was too lazy to format the text.


http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

[RichM]

18. Much less than it is -- but to quantify it , you'd have to really study

a pie-chart of all military spending -- it would be quite a job. Short of that, the best one can do is give a "gut estimate" -- I'd guess that 20-25% is probably in the right ballpark.

[ddoumeche]

22. Some possibles cuts

There are plenty of useless programs in the current US Army, like :

- the modernizing of thousand of M1 Abrahms. But against who ? The first version is enougth do achieve victory even against most modern Russian tanks.
- the NMD is a failure, unable to detect a missile launch except with hundreds of satelites, far too much for current launchers capabilities. And the exoguards are unable to intercept . It's useless except against a small rogue state who won't attack the USA by fear of retaliation anyway (just like other nuclear powers). And terrorist groups won't bother with a rocket but smuggle a bomb on the US soil by car or boat.
- the US Navy want to extend its fleet of SSNG (Submarines new generations) to 68, each costing 2bn$ (!). But what for ? Been able to maintain an economic embargo against Ireland, Japan or UK (too late, they have a tunnel) ? None of their mission can't be accomplished by a fleet, even foe submarines tracking. They better had to reduce the number of submarines, not increasing it.
- the US own 7800 actives nuclear warheads, enought to destroy earth 10 times. They are expensives to maintain as their vectors (bombers, ICBMS, SSBM) and could be reduced to 800, enought to discourage any opponents in the world. After all, there is no defense against them as the NMD proved it. And the technology needed to build more still exist, it's stupid to waste good uranium for this.
- what is the interest of using expensives JDAM when they probably have killed more civilans in Iraq than during Gulf war ?
- each year, the pentagon lose track of 10% of its budget (the actual datas are 2 trillions $ lost). Enought to compensate 4 years of deficit, or Bush mandate's length.
- what is the point to develop expensive "stealth" planes and choppers when you already control the sky by the number ? Reduce your aviation to 10 planes, shared by the USMC, the US Navy and the USAF and too expensives to be engaged in a battle ? Isn't the B2 case instructive (20 bombers build for 2.2 billions each).

Just reducing this should save billions, easily 15% of budget. As Rumself said the 10th september 2001, the USA has to confront a huge foe, who can kill him : the pentagon bureaucracy.

[BeFree]

23. Which begs the question

Who will be the Secretary of Defense in 2005?

Whoever that person is will be the one to make the argument for a more finacially sound DOD.

I kinda liked the direction the secretary of DOD under Clinton was moving. He and Bill were making the military into a leaner and stronger force.

[HawkerHurricane]

24. There are lots of places to cut, but remember:

there is nothing more expensive than a second best military.

[KittyWampus]

25. Remember: The Pentagon LOST Trillions Of Dollars TWICE

Within the last several years.

Something is fishy when it comes to the military budget.

Why aren't the Dem candidates mentioning this?