Military spending - how much is appropriate?

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[CoryKS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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.