Military spending - how much is appropriate?

[Archangel M]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

True dat!

 

[Makalakumu]

True dat!

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

 

[geezer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

He slashed military spending.

No he didn't.