# Military spending - how much is appropriate?



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2009)

I was reading this article and it spurred some thoughts that I'd like to discuss.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

How much military spending is appropriate?  What do you support?  What is the popular position where you live?

Here are a couple of snippets from the link that could stir discussion...
































When the data is presented, it becomes apparent to me that in my country (the US) we spend too much on our military.  I believe that if we ever are going to have fiscal sanity return to our federal budgets and peace on our planet, the US needs to reduce its level of military spending to become comparable to what is being spent elsewhere.  

I am really curious how the level of military spending is justified in other countries and about what people outside the US think of our level of spending.  Thoughts?


----------



## geezer (Jul 12, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I am really curious how the level of military spending is justified in other countries and about what people outside the US think of our level of spending.  Thoughts?



Hmmmm. Brings to mind that famous quote by President Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Have we forgotten this hard truth?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2009)

geezer said:


> Hmmmm. Brings to mind that famous quote by President Eisenhower:
> 
> "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
> 
> Have we forgotten this hard truth?


 
Eisenhower's mind and mine are much the same.  It would seem that his warning about the Military Industrial Complex may have been ignored.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 12, 2009)

Reminds me of the old slogan, "What if they gave a war and no one showed up"?

The answer to that is:

"What if they gave a war and only ONE SIDE SHOWED UP".

You forget China and Russia always bury their military budget in other categories. So the stats shown are bogus.

Add to that, the U.S. tends to rely on very high tech gear. And that gear cost lots more. And then there is Afghanistan and Iraq, something China and Russia are not involved in.

Look at it this way. All that spending we have done has kept us from being in a third World War. A nuclear one. You will find that if we did not stay strong that would have invited another big war. Like the two world wars we went through (and at the time our country was isolationist.)

Deaf


----------



## geezer (Jul 13, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Look at it this way. *All that spending* we have done has kept us from being in a third World War. A nuclear one...



"All that spending..."  Yep, sometimes it made us safer, sometimes it stimulated the economy and provided jobs, ...but other times it ended up being a huge waste of dollars and lives, making a few individuals very rich while contributing to the crushing weight of our budget deficit. I won't argue specific policies in specific conflicts. We'll all disagree anyway, but it is fair to say that it's a complex issue... _and we should all demand accountability._

Unless you think that the military functions best when you give it a blank check?


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 13, 2009)

How much is approbiate, all of it ask the government.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 13, 2009)

Only one way to find out.  Personally I like to err on the side of caution and have too much military rather than too little, on the theory that it would be difficult to rapidly ramp up if the SHTF.  But there's always room for experimentation as long as you can accept the results if you make a mistake.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2009)

The spending here is about right, the problem is that the wrong equipment is being bought. Originally the government thought the snatch land rovers used in Northern Ireland was the 'ideal' vehicle for out there but it's cost lives, most recently those of five soldiers at the weekend. When they realised they weren't as ideal as they thought they ordered new ones but these are no better, they aren't fit for purpose.
The British government has bought vehicles that the Americans turned down as not being 'bomb proof' enough, and to add injury to insult the vehicles we've bought are more expensive.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/...hiefs-blew-150m-wrong-trucks-Afghanistan.html


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 13, 2009)

How about we spend half as much as the rest of the planet combined instead of nearly as much?  That would still be a hell of a lot of military, and a huge savings to us when deficits and debt are reaching all time highs.

We could also cut out the "World Policeman" bit.  That would save some cash, not to mention hard feelings.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 13, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> How about we spend half as much as the rest of the planet combined instead of nearly as much? That would still be a hell of a lot of military, and a huge savings to us when deficits and debt are reaching all time highs.
> 
> We could also cut out the "World Policeman" bit. That would save some cash, not to mention hard feelings.


 
You willing to cut out things like deploying carriers to areas hit by typhoons while the UN is still deciding who they want to cater the kickoff meeting to discuss the situation?  That would save us a lot of money, too.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 13, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> You willing to cut out things like deploying carriers to areas hit by typhoons while the UN is still deciding who they want to cater the kickoff meeting to discuss the situation?  That would save us a lot of money, too.



Sure. We don't need a carrier group to run over supplies and help.  I'm sure there are many more cost effective ways of doing so.

Although I'm sure it would save less money than you expect, as the groups sent over to such areas IIRC were already deployed.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 13, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Sure. We don't need a carrier group to run over supplies and help. I'm sure there are many more cost effective ways of doing so.
> 
> Although I'm sure it would save less money than you expect, as the groups sent over to such areas IIRC were already deployed.


 
I think you're missing my point.  If we're not going to be the "World's Policemen (tm)", why would we be sending supplies and help at all?  Or are you okay with being the "World's Fire Department"?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 13, 2009)

how much?

enough to make every other country in the world, even when combined think "it isnt a good idea to mess with these dudes"


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> You forget China and Russia always bury their military budget in other categories. So the stats shown are bogus.


 
That's interesting.  I've never heard that before.  How do you know this?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> how much?
> 
> enough to make every other country in the world, even when combined think "it isnt a good idea to mess with these dudes"


That may be true... but those folks also remember the lessons learned from the *former* Soviet Union whose spending about equaled if not exceeded the U.S. and eventually they collapsed under their own weight. For us it might only be a matter of time. 
Yes our stuff is more high tech but is it really helping us win or even shorten conflicts? The equipment like any piece of hardware is only HALF as good as it's user. The user has to be as HALF as good as the gear they're holding/driving/piloting/steering/monitoring/et al. 
Sure a lot of that money is in training to use that hardware and all that. 
Question is how much of it do we really need? 

Our defense is (or should be) top priority. Yet the smallest managed to slip in and kill over 3000 people in a single day... what does that say?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2009)

A couple of things to think about...

1.  Our current level of military spending at about 1 trillion per year (including both wars) is adding to a deficit that is bankrupting our country.  We probably could cut this number in half by ending both wars and cutting back on the "world policemen" bit.

2.  Our current level of spending could be viewed as a subsidy for other countries to NOT spend what they should on defense.  Who needs to spend on defense when the US volunteered to be the policeman?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 13, 2009)

that we need to NOT let any more arabs into the country?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The spending here is about right, the problem is that the wrong equipment is being bought.


 
At one time, Britain had one of the largest militaries in the world.  Has there been a substantial reduction in the size of your military over time or has the US's military grown so large that is dwarfs the UKs?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> At one time, Britain had one of the largest militaries in the world. Has there been a substantial reduction in the size of your military over time or has the US's military grown so large that is dwarfs the UKs?


 
We've had big cuts, many regiments have been amalgamated much to manys disgust. traditionally, the Tories will increase spending and up the numbers and Labour will cut spending and sack service people. We've got more cuts coming believe it or not. My own department has been told to make cuts, though hopefully not jobs, yet again this year. there's talk of regiments being disbanded and ships being mothballed. It places a huge strain on the remaining forces.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 13, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> At one time, Britain had one of the largest militaries in the world. Has there been a substantial reduction in the size of your military over time or has the US's military grown so large that is dwarfs the UKs?


 
It does, but it's not a fair comparison.  You're talking about a country with a population of 60M compared to a country with a population of 300M.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> that we need to NOT let any more arabs into the country?



WTF?  Seriously.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 13, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> I think you're missing my point.  If we're not going to be the "World's Policemen (tm)", why would we be sending supplies and help at all?  Or are you okay with being the "World's Fire Department"?



Not automatically, no.  But I wouldn't say no help ever, either.  It just isn't that much money compared to the rest, so we should probably decide on a case-by-case basis.

Or we could go back to the military envisaged by Jefferson, the militia called up when needed.  Now that would save some cash!


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 13, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Not automatically, no.  But I wouldn't say no help ever, either.  It just isn't that much money compared to the rest, so we should probably decide on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> Or we could go back to the military envisaged by Jefferson, the militia called up when needed.  Now that would save some cash!



I dont think ole TJ ever envisioned ICM's, bombers or the enemy being able to drop on him from out of the sky LOL!

Not to say ever thinking the USA would be expected to protect allies half the world away within a number of days (if not hours).


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 13, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> WTF?  Seriously.




we got hit once for 3K casualties.

what did the 19 all have in common?

thats a good place to start in figuring out who is a security risk

it is simply GOOD POLICE WORK

whatever else it may be


----------



## blindsage (Jul 13, 2009)

Actually let the Arabs come, they only attacked a liberal America-hating stronghold anyway.  But we should send any white, libertarian leaning, anti-government types to Guantanamo, so they can't kill anymore god-fearing proper Americans in terrorist attacks on government institutions.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 13, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> that we need to NOT let any more arabs into the country?


Not all Arabs are terrorists. Not all muslims are terrorists. not all muslims are arab...
Iran, for example is an aryan nation...


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 13, 2009)

not all muslims are terrorists

all THOSE terrorists were however muslim


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Actually let the Arabs come, they only attacked a liberal America-hating stronghold anyway. But we should send any white, libertarian leaning, anti-government types to Guantanamo, so they can't kill anymore god-fearing proper Americans in terrorist attacks on government institutions.


 

You don't get out much then.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 13, 2009)

We should submit a bill to the UN and all the countries we've "policed."


----------



## blindsage (Jul 13, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> You don't get out much then.


Me?  I get out plenty.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 13, 2009)

geezer said:


> "All that spending..." Yep, sometimes it made us safer, sometimes it stimulated the economy and provided jobs, ...but other times it ended up being a huge waste of dollars and lives, making a few individuals very rich while contributing to the crushing weight of our budget deficit. I won't argue specific policies in specific conflicts. We'll all disagree anyway, but it is fair to say that it's a complex issue... _and we should all demand accountability._
> 
> Unless you think that the military functions best when you give it a blank check?


 
Crushing weight? Might want to talk about the 'stimulus' instead. Now that's a crushing weight.

Sure the spending on military helped the economy. It also spurred alot to science technology you use everyday. Ever wonder where the GPS came from? Sure not from Obama's idea of 'stimulus'.

Accountability? Now how are you going to second guess what decisions were made as to what was bought? Going to hold trials? Jail people for their decisions while in office?

Now tell me, if you do that just who do you expect will ever make those decisions again with the worry some 'citizens' would want to jail them for what they THOUGHT was wasteful?

Sure there are things that didn't pan out, and no doubt some of the decisions were bone headed. But any large bureaucracy will have this to an extent cause we are humans, and humans are not perfect.

I only wish we did get the whole 700 + F22s and a whole lot more besides. It's very hard to say just what 'X" dollars will make the country safe and just a little less won't. And that's why I'd rather we spend a bit to much than a bit to little.

Deaf


----------



## geezer (Jul 13, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Crushing weight? Might want to talk about the 'stimulus' instead. Now that's a crushing weight.




Point taken. When the government bureaucrats (including the military bureaucrats) have a blank check from the taxpayers, don't expect the money to go where it's needed. More likely it ends up lining some executive's pockets.



Deaf Smith said:


> Accountability? Now how are you going to second guess what decisions were made as to what was bought? Going to hold trials? Jail people for their decisions while in office?



Oh, I never said anything about trials. I just get royally pissed when some general's buddies in the defense industry get rich when our soldiers can't even get the equipment they need to do their job safely. Remember how hard it was to get them body armor, armored humvees, and MRAPs? Hell, maybe you're right. Maybe the brass that spend hundreds of our dollars on hammers and toilet seats while our soldiers in the field go under-equipped _deserve a freakin' medal!_



Deaf Smith said:


> Sure there are things that didn't pan out, and no doubt some of the decisions were bone headed. But any large bureaucracy will have this to an extent cause we are humans, and humans are not perfect.



That's cute. _"Things that didn't pan out"_. Like 58,000 dead in Vietnam. And for squat. I hope we get a better "return" for our investment in US lives this time around.



Deaf Smith said:


> It's very hard to say just what 'X" dollars will make the country safe and just a little less won't. And that's why I'd rather we spend a bit to much than a bit to little.



Yep, except if you do spend a bit too much on war, then you spend less on other things that matter. Remember the Eisenhower quote? 

It _is_ hard to say what's the right amount to spend. And I don't have the answer. But I think it's also important to spend what is needed on things like education and health care. Otherwise what kind of nation will we have left to be worth protecting?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 13, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> We should submit a bill to the UN and all the countries we've "policed."




i like the cut of your Jib


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 14, 2009)

geezer said:


> That's cute. _"Things that didn't pan out"_. Like 58,000 dead in Vietnam. And for squat. I hope we get a better "return" for our investment in US lives this time around.


 
The Vietnam War failure was not about spending. It was how it was fought. We fought it by the enemy's rules with one arm tied behind our back. It does not matter how good your hardware is if your strategy and tactics are bankrupt. You have McNamara to thank for that. Notice we did so well taking Afghanistan and Iraq (and you have Dick Cheney and John Boyd to thank for that.) And unless Obama cut-n-runs from Afghanistan (and he just might) then we will prevail there to.



geezer said:


> Yep, except if you do spend a bit too much on war, then you spend less on other things that matter. Remember the Eisenhower quote?
> 
> It _is_ hard to say what's the right amount to spend. And I don't have the answer. But I think it's also important to spend what is needed on things like education and health care. Otherwise what kind of nation will we have left to be worth protecting?


 
And failure to protect our country adequately will make all the education and welfare moot. Kind of like a lifeboat. Does not matter how good and comfortable it is in the life boat if you fail to keep it afloat in a storm.

Deaf


----------



## Big Don (Jul 15, 2009)

geezer said:


> That's cute. _"Things that didn't pan out"_. Like 58,000 dead in Vietnam. And for squat. I hope we get a better "return" for our investment in US lives this time around.


Congrats! That is one of the single stupidest statements online. The war in Vietnam was mismanaged not by the military, but, rather by the civilian leadership, you know, JFK, LBJ... 
Had the military been allowed to fight the way they wanted, we'd have been done with a tenth the casualties in much less time.
When you don't fight to win, you can't friggin win.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 15, 2009)

geezer said:


> Oh, I never said anything about trials. I just get royally pissed when some general's buddies in the defense industry get rich when our soldiers can't even get the equipment they need to do their job safely.


For the past several years, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) has funneled more than $3 million in earmarks to a company in his district to build an underwater "swimmer detection" sonar system for the Navy to use to protect its docks and ships.

But the company, KDH Defense Systems, sews bulletproof vests. It had never built a sonar system and had no expertise in sonar engineering. 
Damn those republicans anyway...
Oh, oopsie...


----------



## geezer (Jul 15, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Congrats! That is one of the single stupidest statements online. The war in Vietnam was mismanaged not by the military, but, rather by the civilian leadership, you know, JFK, LBJ...
> Had the military been allowed to fight the way they wanted, we'd have been done with a tenth the casualties in much less time.
> When you don't fight to win, you can't friggin win.



You know this thread is really not about Vietnam, or Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about appropriate levels of military spending, and efficient, effective use of that money. My reference to 'Nam was to give an example of how a lot of money (and lives) can be wasted if not used wisely. Somehow, it seems you missed my point... again, maybe due to a tendency to see every other point of view through a binary political perspective? _"If you're not with us, your against us"_. 

An attitude like that makes polite conversation difficult, _"...one of the single stupidest statements online..."_ Really, sometimes I've made some blunders, but that's first class hyperbole in anybody's book. Thanks anyway.


----------



## geezer (Jul 15, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> And failure to protect our country adequately will make all the education and welfare moot. Kind of like a lifeboat. Does not matter how good and comfortable it is in the life boat if you fail to keep it afloat in a storm.



Exactly. I'd prefer not to have to end up in that life boat. On the other hand, I damn sure want to know it's there... and seaworthy.

So if we differ, it's in the details... not the basic premise.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 15, 2009)

Ya know...I'm thinking...If they (the gov't) left the 2nd ammendment alone and let it go as intended we probably wouldn't need all this military spending. 

Just a thought.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 15, 2009)

geezer said:


> Exactly. I'd prefer not to have to end up in that life boat. On the other hand, I damn sure want to know it's there... and seaworthy.
> 
> So if we differ, it's in the details... not the basic premise.


 
Not sure I want to be in that lifeboat with folks who are holding a saw and saying, "Hey, I think we have too much boat here."


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 15, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Ya know...I'm thinking...If they (the gov't) left the 2nd ammendment alone and let it go as intended we probably wouldn't need all this military spending.
> 
> Just a thought.


 
Ahhh...most of our spending isnt on infantrymen. Modern defense spending covers tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, missiles, air defense systems, satellite systems, radar installations and on and on...not to mention the upkeep, fueling, maintainence and manning of the same.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 15, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Ya know...I'm thinking...If they (the gov't) left the 2nd ammendment alone and let it go as intended we probably wouldn't need all this military spending.
> 
> Just a thought.


 
Yeah, but that'd make it a lot harder to take other people's things who live across the pond...

Seriously, that is a good point.  The Founding Fathers were against standing armies...and they had good reason.  Look at how many civilizations in the past destroyed themselves through the build up of these kinds of "defenses".


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Ahhh...most of our spending isnt on infantrymen. Modern defense spending covers tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, missiles, air defense systems, satellite systems, radar installations and on and on...not to mention the upkeep, fueling, maintainence and manning of the same.


 
Exactly.  So how much of that do we really need to defend ourselves?  I'm simply amazed at how little other countries spend when compared to us?  It seems extreme to me...


----------



## geezer (Jul 15, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Not sure I want to be in that lifeboat with folks who are holding a saw and saying, "Hey, I think we have too much boat here."



Or, holding a saw, eyeing you intently, and saying, "We really should spent a little bit more on _food _for this boat!" 

BTW Check out the wreck of the _Essex_...basically a Donner party situation at sea! Also influenced Melville's _Moby Dick_.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 15, 2009)

As much as I hate to "appeal to authority"...how are any of us an authority on how much is required? Either you "believe" we are overspending or you "overworry" that we are going to get caught with our pants down. 

Back in the 1940's...if Japan could have landed on Cali. right after Pearl we probably would be under a different flag by now...we were WAY underprepared. In many ways we are still reacting to how close we came.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 15, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> As much as I hate to "appeal to authority"...how are any of us an authority on how much is required? Either you "believe" we are overspending or you "overworry" that we are going to get caught with our pants down.
> 
> Back in the 1940's...if Japan could have landed on Cali. right after Pearl we probably would be under a different flag by now...we were WAY underprepared. In many ways we are still reacting to how close we came.


 
Lets not leave out the effect the Cold War had on our spending.  I would say our current levels probably have more to do with the Cold War and less with the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.  Not saying you are wrong, just adding another layer.

Another thing to keep in mind is the effect the arms industry is going to have on spending levels.  The military industrial complex is old news and everyone knows that they will lobby for as much spending as possible.


----------



## JDenver (Jul 15, 2009)

I think what the past few years have shown is that it isn't HOW MUCH you spend, but HOW.  

In the 90's, the US realized that they don't need enough nuclear weapons to destroy 28 planet Earths, maybe just enough to do 17.  

No one ever surrendered to a plane (some US general said that).  Gotta spend on counterterrorism and intelligence.......and less than now!!!


----------



## Big Don (Jul 15, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Lets not leave out the effect the Cold War had on our spending.  I would say our current levels probably have more to do with the Cold War and less with the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.  Not saying you are wrong, just adding another layer.


I think you are both wrong. The current levels of spending are a greater reflection of the rebuilding that was nessecary after the fiasco presidency of Jimmy Carter. Just think, now that Obama is serving Carter's second, and probably third terms, (the people ARE really THAT stupid) we get to do it again...


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 16, 2009)

True dat!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> True dat!


 
Why do you (et all) feel that Carter's presidency was such a fiasco when it came to military spending?


----------



## geezer (Jul 16, 2009)

Big Don said:


> I think you are both wrong. The current levels of spending are a greater reflection of the rebuilding that was nessecary after the fiasco presidency of Jimmy Carter...



Carter... a one-term president from '76 to '80? I remember the times well. Now could you elaborate on what, exactly, is the connection between his presidency and our current situation? 

Please write simply and use small words. Remember, I'm the author of "...one of the single, stupidest statements online..." Thanks!


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 16, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Why do you (et all) feel that Carter's presidency was such a fiasco when it came to military spending?



Because they want to.  The actual data shows that military spending remained flat during the Carter years, at the same level of the drawdown initiated during the Ford years.  As expected, the end of the Vietnam war resulted in decreased spending to 283.8 billion in 1976 and it remained at that level through the Carter presidency.  I'm not sure why we should have been spending more when no war was in the offing.


----------



## geezer (Jul 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> As much as I hate to "appeal to authority"...how are any of us an authority on how much is required? Either you "believe" we are overspending or you "overworry" that we are going to get caught with our pants down.



Again, it's not just how much, but _how and what_ you spend your money on that matters. If you want to talk WWI, how about looking at the French (that's always amusing). They spent a bundle on the Maginot line... and a lot of good it did them. 

Oh, and about Pearl Harbor. My dad and uncle served in the Navy back then. They told me that we had a lot of good ships and planes, but that we had them all lined up like ducks in a row. That doesn't sound like a money issue to me.


----------



## geezer (Jul 16, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Because they want to.  The actual data shows that military spending remained flat during the Carter years, at the same level of the drawdown initiated during the Ford years.  As expected, the end of the Vietnam war resulted in decreased spending to 283.8 billion in 1976 and it remained at that level through the Carter presidency.  I'm not sure why we should have been spending more when no war was in the offing.



_Empty_, do you suppose that this "Carter connection" isn't about money at all. Maybe it goes back to having recently "lost" in Vietnam and then having to face the humiliation of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the US Embassy hostages. Sure, eventually Carter got them out alive... but what about our national pride? Maybe _Don_ and _Twin_ would have rather we'd just _nuked_ Iran and anybody else who got in our way. It might have started WWIII, but hey! _at least we wouldn't have to live in shame._ Hell, we might not be alive at all.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 17, 2009)

I think this issue is less an one of how much the United States spends versus what is spends this money on.  

The question is in what kind of missions will the U.S. be required to be engaged.  Without getting into the debate regarding whether we should have gone to Iraq or not, a careful anaylsis of the types of weapons systems the U.S. will need to fight future wars is needed to determine what weapon systems will be needed.

There are a couple of cultural caveats to this, however.  The first is that the U.S. people are reticent to have even a single U.S. casualty.  This means that protective systems must be as state of the art as possible, and that costs money.  This would include shipboard systems, aircraft, as well as those for the individual soldier, airman, sailor, or marine.  Please understand that I am not saying that these systems shouldn't be in place, but if this is the culture that we are going to keep, then it must be understand that it will cost.

Most of the military innovations today are in order to replace the man on the battlefield.  That means more and more expensive technologies.  But it also leads to the second cultural caveat.

Americans are increasingly unwilling to have collateral damage.  But alot of this type of damage is caused by not having people in harms way.  It is very difficult for the Hellfire missle on an aircraft to be discriminatory regarding who it kills when it explodes.  And when that missle is fired by someone watching the target through a camera 1,000 miles away which is situated on a Predator drone, target discrimination becomes even more difficult.  

And still besides, we must be able to defend ourselves from techologically advanced countries, such as China.

So the question becomes, what is the balance.

I can actually appreciate something I saw on the news regarding Obama's concept for the military.  40% will be dedicated to fighting a truly conventional war, 20% will be dedicated to fight in special warfare environments, and 40% will be flexible enough to fight in both.  I don't know if he, or the military, will have the available mental capacity to be able to purchase systems that will be able to accomplish this goal, but the philosophy is at least somewhat sound.

But, I still predict that any military design will be heavily technologically based, which will cause the costs to rise.


In regards to the military helping in natural disasters, I believe the cost is still staggering.  Usually this help comes in the form of Naval vessels, in some form or other.  The cheapest operating cost that I could find for a modern naval vessel is $44,000 *per day*.  And this is during its usual routine activities.  These costs will necessarily increase during any type of emergency response.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 17, 2009)

geezer said:


> Oh, and about Pearl Harbor. My dad and uncle served in the Navy back then. They told me that we had a lot of good ships and planes, but that we had them all lined up like ducks in a row. That doesn't sound like a money issue to me.


 
Read some history...Sixty years ago, the American armed forces were ranked sixteenth in the world, between those of Portugal and Romania; they were one-tenth the size of Germany's and half the size of Japan's; and they accounted for only 1.6 percent of the world's military personnel. And granted..while the Navy was better prepared than the Army (they were the "isolationist line of defense"), they were severly lacking in carriers and new development.  Pearl was also an example of the "mental unpreparedness" we suffered as well.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 17, 2009)

Something to think about...



> If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
> -- James Madison, Chief Architect of the Constitution


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 17, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Something to think about...



That has been shown to be true again and again.  Whether during the Civil War or the War on Terrah.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 17, 2009)

geezer said:


> Carter... a one-term president from '76 to '80? I remember the times well. Now could you elaborate on what, exactly, is the connection between his presidency and our current situation?
> 
> Please write simply and use small words. Remember, I'm the author of "...one of the single, stupidest statements online..." Thanks!


 

Jimmy 'Malaise' Carter?

Carter destroyed the CIA by cashiering all the agents on the ground in the middle east. And that is why we were so blind as to what was happening over there. Spy satellites only go so far as for intelligence.

He slashed military spending. He wanted to even pull out of Korea. He didn't lift a finger to help Cambodia either. Remember the domino effect? Millions died with that domino and more than just Cambodia fell.

The inflation rate skyrocketed. The unemployment skyrocketed (kind of like today with Obama.) Remember the "Misery Index"?
 
Why, theres a lot that Carter did. And did badly.

Deaf


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 17, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> He slashed military spending.



No he didn't.


----------



## Joab (Jul 17, 2009)

All we are spending and more really. We have Afghanistan, Iraq is winding down, but China and Russia are emerging, a global war on terror, North Korea causing problems, Somali pirates raiding ships, drug cartels causing problems on our borders, the list goes on and on. We never needed the military more in my lifetime, as much as we're spending and more.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 17, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> No he didn't.


 
Dunno about that...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6555

And say guys, remember who advised Carter on nuclear proliferation? Give you a hint, her name was Amy.

And the giant attack rabbit?

And remember driving at 55 MPH?

Yes halcon days.... not!

Deaf


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 17, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Dunno about that...
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6555
> 
> ...


 
I remember...

"Put on a sweater" and "even plate/odd plate gas rationing".....


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I remember...
> 
> "Put on a sweater" and "even plate/odd plate gas rationing".....


 
Remember how Carter suggest couples should shower together to save water and electricity?

If Obama keeps it up, we may all end up doing that and driving 55, if we can afford a 'green' car!

Deaf


----------



## howard (Jul 19, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Dunno about that...
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6555
> And remember driving at 55 MPH?



Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with that. The Emergency Highway Conservation Act, which Richard Nixon signed into law in January 1974, imposed the 55mph speed limit.


----------



## geezer (Jul 19, 2009)

howard said:


> Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with that. The Emergency Highway Conservation Act, which Richard Nixon signed into law in January 1974, imposed the 55mph speed limit.



In response to the Arab Oil Embargo, also in '74, if I remember correctly. _That _was the year of the long lines at gas stations and "odd-even" license plate number rationing, if I remember correctly. Funny how previous posters mis-attributed these, and a host of other ills, all to Jimmy Carter. I guess its just human nature to simplify history and put everything bad on one guy. Back when I was a kid, everything bad was "Nixon's fault"... right down to the weather.


----------



## howard (Jul 19, 2009)

geezer said:


> In response to the Arab Oil Embargo, also in '74, if I remember correctly...



You're close. That particular embargo actually began in October 1973, in response to events of Yom Kippur war.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 19, 2009)

> During the Presidential campaign of 1976, Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter made frequent references to the Misery Index, which by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan.


With unemployment soaring and taxes rising, at least we can count on a conservative president in 2012.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 19, 2009)

howard said:


> Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with that. The Emergency Highway Conservation Act, which Richard Nixon signed into law in January 1974, imposed the 55mph speed limit.


 
Well, there was so many stupid things Carter did, it's easy to say he did them all.

The sad thing is, did we learn from all the mistakes Carter and Nixon and the rest did?

When we had the embargo, did we drill more? Why aren't we drilling more today?

When we had Carter (and Clinton) try his socialistic schemes, like Natioal Health Care (Remember Hillary and 'Health Care'? The 'coffees". The secret Health Care confrences with big doctors and business?) why do they try it again? 

Carter would not lower taxes and the end result was 'stagflation'. Yet when Reagan cut taxes the economy skyrocketed. And here is Obama doing the same as Carter (only worse.)

And remember Nixon's price controls? Wanna bet if things get worse and inflation roars in, Obama won't try that again to?

Yea it's easy to dump it all on Carter. But that's cause Carter was just so pitiful as a president.

Deaf


----------



## Carol (Jul 19, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Why do you (et all) feel that Carter's presidency was such a fiasco when it came to military spending?



I can think of 444 reasons...


----------



## Big Don (Jul 19, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I can think of 444 reasons...


You don't need anymore.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 20, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Look at it this way. All that spending we have done has kept us from being in a third World War. A nuclear one. You will find that if we did not stay strong that would have invited another big war. Like the two world wars we went through (and at the time our country was isolationist.)




MAD prevented a third world war. The best thing that ever happened was that all power players got nuclear weapons, thus enforcing a stalemate.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 20, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Ya know...I'm thinking...If they (the gov't) left the 2nd ammendment alone and let it go as intended we probably wouldn't need all this military spending.
> 
> Just a thought.



Can you fit a spy sat, aircraft carrier or hellfire missile defense system in your household budget? Handguns and infantrymen have little to do with warfare and national defense.


----------

