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.
Because military spending drives a large portion of our GDP now.....
If it stopped the stock market would drop severely--maybe not right away. But over time
Because military spending drives a large portion of our GDP now.....
If it stopped the stock market would drop severely--maybe not right away. But over time
There are so many US Companies that rely on defence work and as a result the military industrial complex has a lot of clout in Congress.
Senators do not want job losses related to the closures of military contractors, factories, ship yards or military bases in their states, which is why they are eager to back military spending.
At the same time maintaining a strong military is popular with the electorate, and this is especially true post 9/11.
Finally defence contracts are often away of subsidising American companies and a lot of defence and indeed space technology is often later adapted for civilian uses. So the defence industry also helps the US stay ahead of the curve technology wise.
This is a very interesting piece in Mother Jones about the voracious appetite of the military industrial complex and how entrenched it’s become.
Quote:
Simply put, Americans are too militaristic for their own good. Diplomacy is seen as weak in this country. We think the military is the solution to ALL of our foreign policy issues. We think we can just shoot and airstrike our way out of every dilemma despite the fact that such thinking continues to fail us time and again.
The piece also lays out other issues with the Pentagon culture that keeps leading to the defense establishment robbing the budget to pay for nonsense that we don’t even need.
Are we as taxpayers ever gonna put an end to this foolishness?
One of the last things you want to rely on another country for is the tools you use for war. We could have shut down WWII anytime we wanted just by getting Ford and GM to stop producing engines for the enemies trucks and tanks. (Let that sink in when you think about where our loyalties lay in WWII.) (Royal Dutch) Shell was supplying fuel to the Nazis. The Swiss were handling their money laundering. Any one of those could have thrown the brakes on the German war machine.
In order to have a robust military presence on the battlefield, we need to have a robust military manufacturing sector at home. That defense spending goes a long ways to employing MANY Americans (including me.) It also drives the technology that makes your life better.
To get defense spending under control, it would take a two part process:
1) Change human nature so we no longer are disagreeable or tribal.
2) Find another niche industry that no one else can produce as well that could employ and drive our economy (otherwise millions will suffer.) That niche industry will also have to drive technology forward.
Strong militaries don’t have to eat up vast amounts of financial resources from wealthy nations.
I want the United States military to be just strong enough so that it scares the freaking crap out of our enemies or any country who would dare to attack us.
Other than that, I don't want us to spend one cent more.
I want the United States military to be just strong enough so that it scares the freaking crap out of our enemies or any country who would dare to attack us.
That might work with kids on playgrounds, but adults--particularly leaders of their own countries--don't accept living in perpetual fear.
There is a saying: "Never frighten a man smaller than you. He will shoot you when he gets the chance." That is how grown men roll.
All national leaders are badasses in their own eyes. They will form alliances, they will gain access to advanced weapons, they will do what is necessary to fight back.
That's why we're dealing with a nuclear-armed Kim Jong Un now, that's why Iran is never going to rest until it has nuclear weapons too (because they look at Saddam and then look at Kim and clearly see that having nukes works better than not having them),
That's how things like 9/11 happen.
That was why Teddy Roosevelt went by the saying, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
It's not the big stick that scares people, it's the threatening language--and to be smart, you don't want anyone afraid of you.
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.
No one thrust us into the world policeman role. We took that up ourselves.
And why should our “allies” shoulder a burden that they really don’t care about? Why do Americans think they have a right to tell other nations what to spend and what they’re responsible for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
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 GDP argument still makes no sense even if it’s written into the charter. That’s exactly why our “allies” ignore it.
I’m gonna keep a watch on that little political tidbit you just described.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4g4m
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%]
Our Constitution WAS NOT written with the ad hoc purpose of funding a leviathan Pentagon to the tune of trillion dollar wars. GTHOH with that.
The Constitution was written for the benefit of ALL people, and it didn’t preclude us from establishing social programs to help our fellow Americans.
It damn sure doesn’t say that we should build schools, bridges and hospitals in Iraq while letting those same entities rot in the United States. Since when has Baghdad been more important than Cleveland?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
If anyone is paying attention, you might want to note that every country with any presence on the world stage is gearing up like it was 1937.
Not a great time to cut military spending, in other words...
You guys can always find some boogeyman when you get tired of the old one. You love having enemies. You’ll invent one if there’s none in existence.
This is most definitely a good time to cut defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
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.
Our “allies” should’ve become less obedient a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
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.
Their “fair share” is what they think it should be. Those are sovereign nations. This ain’t 1945.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantiquity
Two things here..One: What do you consider 'under control' and what don't we even need?
And Two: Mother Jones? Really?
Under control means exactly what it says.
As to Mother Jones, they’re the messenger. Put the damn gun away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
I want the United States military to be just strong enough so that it scares the freaking crap out of our enemies or any country who would dare to attack us.
Other than that, I don't want us to spend one cent more.
We’re spending a fortune now and we’re not scaring anyone.
You would have a major problem with such a broad based law such as this.
First. Kidnapping. A girl or woman is kidnapped, tied up/drugged in a basement, raped, but has to report her rape within 48 hours? Does she have a time limit to escape? Elizabeth Smart would be out of luck, Same for those three young women in Ohio, but then you get into psychological issues as well. Which brings up.......
Young woman grows up in a extreme religious cult where it is accepted behavior for the Elders to have sex with the underage girls. She leaves as an adult and comes to know this behavior is rape. She then charges them many years later. Out of luck?
Mentally impaired women. An adult non-verbal woman with the mental capacity of a 2 year old is not going to report her rape in 48 hours, or 40 years. She is incapable of doing so, but this has happened as well. I worked in the MR/DD field. No male staff member was allowed to be alone with a female Consumer, let alone change her diaper or menstrual pads.
Then we have the other side of the gender issue as well. Besides the Catholic Priests issue with young boys, we have also seen female Teachers having sexual relations with underage male students. Priests prosecuted, but forget the female Teachers? Ha, Ha, Wink, Wink. He's getting it on with his Teach? Acceptable? I don't accept that as a woman. Statutory Rape/Sexual Abuse is the same for both genders. She said/he said, he said/he said, he said/she said.
You cannot make broad based, one size fits all laws. Exception for? Exception for?
Because military spending drives a large portion of our GDP now.....
If it stopped the stock market would drop severely--maybe not right away. But over time
This is a very interesting piece in Mother Jones about the voracious appetite of the military industrial complex and how entrenched it’s become.
Quote:
Simply put, Americans are too militaristic for their own good. Diplomacy is seen as weak in this country. We think the military is the solution to ALL of our foreign policy issues. We think we can just shoot and airstrike our way out of every dilemma despite the fact that such thinking continues to fail us time and again.
The piece also lays out other issues with the Pentagon culture that keeps leading to the defense establishment robbing the budget to pay for nonsense that we don’t even need.
Are we as taxpayers ever gonna put an end to this foolishness?
This OP is nothing but bunk. Defense is Job #1 for Uncle Sam.
The nonsense we don't need is the Welfare state. Zero that out, and much of the problem is solved.
Citing Mother Jones as a source renders one creditability-less as it has in this thread
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.
