• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

You can throw up all the GDP numbers you want, but I prefer to reside in the real world.

That's why I also threw up actual dollars.

As a percent of GDP, Defense spending has remained on average around the same percentage for the past 2 decades

As dollars adjusted for inflation, Defense spending has grew over the past 2 decades by more than 50%.

As just straight dollars, Defense spending has grew over the past 2 decades by more than 100%

You can talk about residing in the "real world" but apparently the word "real" has a very different meaning in your reality, specifically meaning "imaginary based on my own hyper partisan biases".

You stated this:

Our armed forces have been cut in half over the past two decades.

Now, you specifically just specified our armed forces. Not the active duty men of our armed forces, but the armed forces as a whole. That, frankly, is incorrect. The military has grown substantially, based on some measures its doubled, in the past decade. Where you are correct on is the men in charge of the Pentagon have gotten more and more money and yet have used it less and less on actual soldiers. But even if we allowed your change of goal posts from "The armed forces" to "troops" you'd STILL be factually wrong.

In the past two decades we've reduced our actual troop size by around 40%, or just over 600 thousand soldiers. During that time, George H.W. Bush accounted for roughly 341k of those troops being cut while Clinton presided over roughly 320k being removed.

So with LESS money our military had more troops two decades ago than they do now, which seems to suggest that in the past two decades as the military's budget has stayed the same / doubled (depending how you look at it) they've chosen to spend more on things OTHER than the troops than on actual number of troops. That seems to be an issue with the Pentagon, the people running the show, and the people deciding what to do with the budget...not the budget themselves.

Haven't you and other republicans been screaming about how we shouldn't be giving more money to the government when they're using it ineffectively and wasting it? Well, if you care so much about troop size, your Pentagon has been using the ever growing and ever expanding budget ineffectively and wasting it, yet in this case your solution is to continue to give them more money to waste.

Link 1 (for 1990 number)
Link 2 (for current number)
 
You can throw up all the GDP numbers you want, but I prefer to reside in the real world.

The United States military fields half the combat power it did in 1990. You can through those GDP numbers in the enemy's face and he'll shoot your ass. You'll probably die, because the defense cuts didn't allow enough money for dustoff assets to evac you from the battlefield.

Who exactly do you think we're going to be fighting?
 
Things we could cut from the military with no ill effect:

Several aircraft carriers - We have as many as everyone else combined. I'm pretty sure we could get by with 5 or 6. It's not our job to police the world. That would also let us get rid of a corresponding number of other ships which make up carrier battle groups.

The majority of our tank forces - Tanks are useless against irregulars because all they have to do is hide, and air strikes are much more effective against other tanks.

Strategic bombers - Only useful for two things: Carpet bombing and dropping nukes. Neither of those things are things we really want to be doing.

Most of our nuclear arsenal - A single Ohio class submarine carries enough nuclear missiles to glass a good sized country. We have 14.

Overseas bases - Keep a few in unstable areas like Korea and the Middle East. Get rid of all the others.

A good percentage of our infantry - Increase the size of our special forces to compensate, since they're better at fighting irregulars.

As many of the pencil pushers at the Pentagon as possible.
 
I bet you wouldn't be saying that if the KPA had just crossed the wire at Yujeong and were cruising down highway 3, through Jeongok and Dongducheon, headed straight for downtown Seoul, in the west and another column in the east going down highway 55, with their sights set on Taegu and then Pusan.

Let's face facts, bro, the ROKs won't be able to stop them, because when the Kocoms cross the 38th Parallel, they're not coming by the thousands; they're going come by the millions.

/facepalm
Read my posts in the Asia-Pacific subforum. You clearly have no idea of the situation at the Korean peninsula.
 
Things we could cut from the military with no ill effect:

Several aircraft carriers - We have as many as everyone else combined. I'm pretty sure we could get by with 5 or 6. It's not our job to police the world. That would also let us get rid of a corresponding number of other ships which make up carrier battle groups.

The majority of our tank forces - Tanks are useless against irregulars because all they have to do is hide, and air strikes are much more effective against other tanks.

Strategic bombers - Only useful for two things: Carpet bombing and dropping nukes. Neither of those things are things we really want to be doing.

Most of our nuclear arsenal - A single Ohio class submarine carries enough nuclear missiles to glass a good sized country. We have 14.

Overseas bases - Keep a few in unstable areas like Korea and the Middle East. Get rid of all the others.

A good percentage of our infantry - Increase the size of our special forces to compensate, since they're better at fighting irregulars.

As many of the pencil pushers at the Pentagon as possible.

Agreed. The war of this age is the unconventional/irregular/asymmetrical warfare. Most of what you stated are useless in that kind of combat.
All the US needs aside from the weaponry for unconventional warfare are nukes. A few will keep countries like Russia and China in check.
 
Our armed forces have been cut in half over the past two decades. If we decrease it by another third, what will be left?

All these cuts will cost lives.

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the link above is not authoritative, it is a good collection of verifiable data. It shows that defense spending hasn't gone down, just the number of people in uniform. We spend a ton on "contractors" who perform duties that used to be handled by men/women in uniform. Privatization has caused us to get less for more. There's also the propensity to pay for advanced weapons when there is no real threat. Defense spending is completely out of control. Even Gates couldn't tame it.

The US accounts for 42.8% of all of the defense spending in the entire world. On what basis do we rationalize that?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we just cut that to 33% of the world total, we wouldn't have no stinking deficit.
 
That's so undeniably incorrect and patently false I don't know where to begin.

In 1990 Defense spending was roughly just under 6% of GDP. "Two Decades" after it was just over 6% GDP. Even at its absolute lowest, around 98/99, it was still solidly more than 3% GDP so was not "half".

our defense budget hit a postwar high of 14.2% of GDP in 1953 during the Korean War. At the height of Vietnam in 1968, it was 9.5%, and it was 6.8% in 1986 at the height of the Reagan buildup. In 2000, military funding reached the lowest point on 3.0%. Today, 10 years into the Global War on Terror, we are spending 4.7% of GDP on defense.

How about in straight dollars adjusted for inflation? In 1990 we would've been just shy of 500 Billion. In 2010 we would've been just over 800 Billion. That's not cutting in half, that's raising it by more than half and is actually double what it was at its lowest, which would've been a shade under 400 Billion in 98/99.

How about just flat out dollars, not even adjusted? You go from just over $300 billion to just over $600 billion.

You got numbers saying otherwise, please present them. But from what I've seen you're math isn't just wrong...its devastatingly wrong depending how you look at it. Best case scenario is that over the past 2 decades we maintained roughly the same amount of average defense spending as a percent of GDP.

As I said, I'd be happy to see numbers to the contrary, but right now it looks like you're just factually horribly incorrect. Also, interesting note. Cutting it by 1/3rd would bring it down to roughly 4% GDP. Still not close to "half" of its high of the past two decades of just over 6, and still higher than 1996 - 2002.

link

you are mistaking "money" for "combat power". remember that DOD provides healthcare to millions of people; and it has eaten those increased costs as they have skyrocketed. also, during that time period, congress mandated continuous pay raises for military personnel in order to bring their paychecks closer to their civilian equivalents. that was a welcome change, but that money did have to come out of the DOD budget. in addition, the wars came with their own dramatically increased costs that did not represent any kind of actual military buildup.

to put it in the terms that he was discussing (actual ability to project force): in 1990, the Army had 18 Divisions. Now it has 10. The Navy had 600 ships. Now they have 280, making our current fleet the smallest it has been since WWI; and most of those are older, many have cracks running up and down the lengths of their hulls. The number of tactical Air Wings that the Air Force can muster has fallen from 37 to 20 (and that with fewer planes per wing), and (again) many of the planes are older. The new top air craft coming to replace them (the F-22) has been cut. The useful life of the equipment from the Reagan Buildup is ending, and we have apparently decided not to purchase replacements.
 
Agreed. The war of this age is the unconventional/irregular/asymmetrical warfare. Most of what you stated are useless in that kind of combat.
All the US needs aside from the weaponry for unconventional warfare are nukes. A few will keep countries like Russia and China in check.

that only works if we are willing to use them. and one of the nations we would have to "keep in check" would be NKorea. How do you feel about thermonuclear devises going off a few miles from Seoul?
 
deal with that when/if it happens. for now you could always take a break from spreading "freedom and democracy" when it suits.

think of all the money you will save in the meantime.

By ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we would cut $150 billion dollars a year in spending. By also cutting military spending by 50% we would save another $350 billion a year. That's a half trillion dollars annually in deficit reduction. And we would still be spending more on military than any other country on the planet.
 
that only works if we are willing to use them. and one of the nations we would have to "keep in check" would be NKorea. How do you feel about thermonuclear devises going off a few miles from Seoul?

I wouldn't have to feel because that device, as like most NK products, will most likely be a dud
 
I think he meant us nuking NKorea. Our nukes usually work pretty well.

And we have the great distinction of being the only country ever to have used them on a civilian population.
 
By ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we would cut $150 billion dollars a year in spending. By also cutting military spending by 50% we would save another $350 billion a year. That's a half trillion dollars annually in deficit reduction.

83352767.jpg



the DOD Budget for 2011 was $531 Bn On top of that, we spent $150 Bn on the wars. 1/2 of $531 is $265.5, not 350.
 
Last edited:
83352767.jpg



the DOD Budget for 2011 was $531 Bn On top of that, we spent $150 Bn on the wars. 1/2 of $531 is $265.5, not 350.

No, he's got the right figures.
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To be fair, that's 2012, not 2011, but then again, the budget is supposed to be smaller for 2012. It also includes things like pensions and veteran's affair's, which aren't cutable. But that means that the entire $707.5 billion DoD budget is potentially on the chopping block. You could also probably knock off $15 billion or so from the Department of Energy budget in the form of nuclear weapons disarmament.
 
Things we could cut from the military with no ill effect:

Several aircraft carriers - We have as many as everyone else combined. I'm pretty sure we could get by with 5 or 6. It's not our job to police the world. That would also let us get rid of a corresponding number of other ships which make up carrier battle groups.

The majority of our tank forces - Tanks are useless against irregulars because all they have to do is hide, and air strikes are much more effective against other tanks.

Strategic bombers - Only useful for two things: Carpet bombing and dropping nukes. Neither of those things are things we really want to be doing.

Most of our nuclear arsenal - A single Ohio class submarine carries enough nuclear missiles to glass a good sized country. We have 14.

Overseas bases - Keep a few in unstable areas like Korea and the Middle East. Get rid of all the others.

A good percentage of our infantry - Increase the size of our special forces to compensate, since they're better at fighting irregulars.

As many of the pencil pushers at the Pentagon as possible.

Specious argument since if this logic was applied to the US armed forces in general we either REALLY want to kill others and put our troops in harms way or if we do not then we should just do away with the military all together. After all do we really WANT to be doing war?
 
No, he's got the right figures.
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To be fair, that's 2012, not 2011, but then again, the budget is supposed to be smaller for 2012. It also includes things like pensions and veteran's affair's, which aren't cutable. But that means that the entire $707.5 billion DoD budget is potentially on the chopping block. You could also probably knock off $15 billion or so from the Department of Energy budget in the form of nuclear weapons disarmament.

no, because he's double-counting the cost of the wars. the budget figure you are quoting above is with their cost added in; he cuts them entirely, and then adds them back in to "cut the DOD budget by half". in reality, his proposed $500 Bn cut to the DOD budget is a 65-70% cut to DOD, depending on whether or not you are including the war costs.


mind you, he's probably fine with the larger number - but that only demonstrates that he doesn't really have a solid grasp on how the world plays out in that kind of a US drawdown.
 
Last edited:
Here are some more facts for liberals, that they conveniently like to leave out of the equation. First is the simple fact that the Iraqi war was already running down when Obama took office, He has done absolutely nothing there to speed that process up in any way. Next it was Obama that sent increased troops to Afghanistan and “increased” our costs of fighting the war there. With little effect BTW. Lastly lets not forget that in Libya it was on Obama's orders and his orders alone that we are there, so that spending in on liberals shoulders and liberal shoulders alone. Spending on wars at the present time is 100% on this administrations time and no one else's, As is the tax rate that was passed to extend the Bush tax cuts.

As to cutting defense spending, I believe that anything that has a nearly 600 billion dollar a year budget is capable of being cut, I wouldn't even dare to hazard a guess as to waste and fraud in handling such a $ figure, but even 5% ( which I believe to be low) would be a savings of 30 billion dollars a year.

I think anyone with half a mind, is in favor of cutting waste and fraud out of every program the US government is infused in, from welfare to our defense.
 
You cannot maintain a military industry of vast proportions and expect to remain fiscally sound at the same time. You need to prioritize. Taking the Soviet Union as an example, I would suggest you reduce your debt first.
 
Specious argument since if this logic was applied to the US armed forces in general we either REALLY want to kill others and put our troops in harms way or if we do not then we should just do away with the military all together. After all do we really WANT to be doing war?

They can be eliminated for the same reason tanks can be eliminated: They're completely ineffective in fighting modern wars. The only thing carpet bombing anyone will do is make us more enemies.
 
They can be eliminated for the same reason tanks can be eliminated: They're completely ineffective in fighting modern wars. The only thing carpet bombing anyone will do is make us more enemies.

Still being specious as you have reduced this argument in 1/2 and disregarded the nuclear option completely while reinforcing the sophistry with a reference to armored warfare being obsolete, which should be a separate thread altogether as it could be debated as still a necessary and viable asset.
 
You can throw up all the GDP numbers you want, but I prefer to reside in the real world.

The United States military fields half the combat power it did in 1990. You can through those GDP numbers in the enemy's face and he'll shoot your ass. You'll probably die, because the defense cuts didn't allow enough money for dustoff assets to evac you from the battlefield.

Sir.. you are wrong.

According to the DODs own numbers, the active military personnel in 1990 was 2.046 million. Active military personnel as of March 31, 2011 was 1.435 million. In fact to get anywhere near the "half", you will have to go back to the hight of the Vietnam war and even then it wont be half.

Oh, and most of the troops (by far) in 1990 and 2011 are where..... sitting on their asses in the US. On top of that what countries are you afraid off? Canada and Mexico?
 
What about the next war that comes along?...and yes...there will be another one. It would be idiotic not to mention very dangerous to assume that there won't be.

The only war we should be involved in would be one where the US was actually threatened, not these empire building blood for oil excursions that we have seen recently. NEWSFLASH...We can no longer afford to be the world police, time to pass the baton.
 
Originally Posted by atrasicarius
"Who exactly do you think we're going to be fighting?"
"Whatever boogeyman they can invent next."

That is exactly correct. It is a big industry and so new boogeyman's are invented by the Industry on a daily basis. That's what keeps the Industry profitalble. Lots of weapons, lots of wars, lots of profits. This country's largest Industry has always been War. Let's face reality, we're not the World's policemen, but exporters of war for profit. Grenada, Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan (this one probably OK), Cuba, Kosovo, Korea, Vietnam, and who attacked us. OBL. One wingnut Saudi and 16 other Saudis. Did we forget to attack Saudi Arabia. Take a look at big money and Energy and realize that wars run on Energy. Ergo, all the big energy companies want more war for good business. So does Boeing, McDonnald Douglas, General Dynamics, Blackwater, Z, vehicle manufacturers, electronics, etc. Ad infinitum. War is our business! Don't it make you feel all proud. Don't count the bodies! Don't show the pictures of the bodies! Don't say that the bodies smell bad! Attack somebody today, build those stock portfolios.
 
What about the next war that comes along?...and yes...there will be another one. It would be idiotic not to mention very dangerous to assume that there won't be.

My friend we wouldn't be in the wars we are in now if we had not invaded foreign lands. It's amazing how much peace you can have as a nation when you leave other people the **** alone. No empire, fewer wars.
 
Back
Top Bottom