Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More than 30 after the public was outraged over $640 toilet seats and other Cold War military waste, the DOD remains the last Federal Department still unable to conduct a financial audit, despite laws in the 90’s requiring full accounting.
Has not mattered who sat the oval or held the majority.
Yep. Both parties are entrenched in the Military Industrial Complex up to their necks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
There really isn't any way for a national military to prevent something like 9/11.
Exactly.
In fact, we’re doing things that would cause 9/11...not prevent it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian
To piggyback on Pilot1's comment, which I agree with, the key is determining where we draw the line. How much military spending do we need to remain the most powerful military? How much do we need for it be so strong as to have this deterrent effect against aggression from other countries?
If all we have to justify our $600 billion/year in military spending is "we need to have the strongest military for its deterrent effect", then we can apply that reasoning to justify any level of spending. The simple fact of the matter is there's tons of military waste, but politically neither party has ever been willing to address it.
Do we need to spend 4x the amount that the China spends on defense? Or 10x the amount that Russia does? Because that's where we stand currently.
Is it really such a stretch to think that U.S. would still be the alpha dog if we spent, say, only double the amount of China's budget? Hell what about triple? If the latter, that frees up at least $150 billion that could be better spent elsewhere to improve the lives of Americans while leaving us all well-protected.
Excellent analysis. Why not just outspend your closest competitors if more spending equals a stronger military (and I don’t believe that it does)?
If China spends 150 billion, we should EASILY be able to get by on 250 billion. And truthfully, we should be able to spend LESS than China and still have a better result if we’re are smart and efficient as we claim to be since we’re further ahead technologically and logistically.
The GDP argument is driving me nuts. I need to find out what the source of that argument is.
Is it really such a stretch to think that U.S. would still be the alpha dog if we spent, say, only double the amount of China's budget? Hell what about triple? If the latter, that frees up at least $150 billion that could be better spent elsewhere to improve the lives of Americans while leaving us all well-protected.
that would be great, but congress needs to make sure their buddies keep getting paid, and congresspeople get their kickbacks from the military spending so they can all show off their yachts to each other.
We dont need to spend not even double of what other countries spend to "keep the fear" as it were.
I will say that the extent and reasons that our civilian leaders send our military to intervene in foreign countries is at times questionable. However, I support our "Arsenal of Democracy" in principle. Simply outspending the competition alone doesn't create an effective deterrent. In order for a conventional military deterrent to be effective, it has to be overwhelmingly superior. We've seen what happened in the first half of the 20th Century when there was relative parity between major powers. The U.S.'s economic might alone won't ensure a rules based world order where liberal, democratic values are the ideal. I think there was a chance in the 90's that we would no longer need a large military one day; however, that time and that chance has sure as hell passed.
Is it fair that the U.S. has been thrust into role of "global policeman." Absolutely not. I believe that our allies in Europe and Asia should shoulder more of the burden as they are major stakeholders in the current world order.
I will also say that there is some bloat in the military budget, but I would say a lot of that is due to the idiosyncrasies of the government contracting/acquisition process combined with the nature/complexity of what is being procured. I would also say that there may be too much focus being put on capability for conventional conflicts and there isn't enough attention on developing overwhelming capability against "asymmetrical" opponents. I would love if some wonks got together and figured out a viable plan to develop a more effective but less costly military.
It happened because various costs were bundled together, and ham-handed accountants arbitrarily assigned costs of individual items in order to get to an overall budget cost.
It's like in the old days when strip clubs would sell a $250 swizzle stick, and then the stripper/hooker takes you into a back room. Technically, you paid $250 for the swizzle stick, but in reality you paid $250 for sex.
Yep. Both parties are entrenched in the Military Industrial Complex up to their necks....The GDP argument is driving me nuts. I need to find out what the source of that argument is.
It's written into the NATO charter. Members are supposed to spend at least 2% of GDP on military, but only about 4 of 29 members meet that requirement. Our percentage is about 3.5%. Of course there are always different ways to define what is military spending and what is not. For example the interstate highway system was originally sold as necessary for national defense by Ike.
I live in the 9th CD of Washington. The incumbent Adam Smith (D, WA) is being challenged from the left by a self-described socialist (kind of the AOC of WA). One of her major arguments is that Adam Smith is up to his eyeballs in the MIC spending. She won't win, but she's doing surprisingly well against a long time (12 term IIRC) incumbent.
The original concept of having a Constitution and a Federal government was to have United States and provide for national defense. It was not written to pay for peoples medical problems, education, groceries, rent subsidies, or 'cell' phones. More money is now spent on 'social programs' [23%] than military [22%]
However, I support our "Arsenal of Democracy" in principle. Simply outspending the competition alone doesn't create an effective deterrent. In order for a conventional military deterrent to be effective, it has to be overwhelmingly superior.
Would you feel comfortable with America militarily attacking Russia?
Or is Russia's $69 billion dollar military budget sufficient in creating an effective deterrent?
$69 billion per year in military spending is enough to create an effective deterrent against every country on Earth.
I will say that the extent and reasons that our civilian leaders send our military to intervene in foreign countries is at times questionable. However, I support our "Arsenal of Democracy" in principle. Simply outspending the competition alone doesn't create an effective deterrent. In order for a conventional military deterrent to be effective, it has to be overwhelmingly superior. We've seen what happened in the first half of the 20th Century when there was relative parity between major powers. The U.S.'s economic might alone won't ensure a rules based world order where liberal, democratic values are the ideal. I think there was a chance in the 90's that we would no longer need a large military one day; however, that time and that chance has sure as hell passed.
Is it fair that the U.S. has been thrust into role of "global policeman." Absolutely not. I believe that our allies in Europe and Asia should shoulder more of the burden as they are major stakeholders in the current world order.
I will also say that there is some bloat in the military budget, but I would say a lot of that is due to the idiosyncrasies of the government contracting/acquisition process combined with the nature/complexity of what is being procured. I would also say that there may be too much focus being put on capability for conventional conflicts and there isn't enough attention on developing overwhelming capability against "asymmetrical" opponents. I would love if some wonks got together and figured out a viable plan to develop a more effective but less costly military.
Democracy is a threat to any system of power. Thats not what the elites want. At all. What matters is obedient allies. You want Europe and Asia to boost military spending but if Europe becomes more united with a stronger military, it will become less obedient. A massive threat for US hegemony. Democracy does not matter at all.
Europe was so traumatized by WWII that I don't think we'll see a threat from any of them. They need to start contributing their fair share for defense. Also, we are still sized, and equipped for large scale, traditional battles that I doubt we will se again. However, the problem is you don't want to be caught just in case a country decides to do it that way. The world is so intertwined with trade, and business, that it acts as a deterrent to large scale conflict.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
