• 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!

Should we trim down our Military????

Should we decrease the size of the U.S. armed forces

  • Yes, by a substantial amount

    Votes: 16 40.0%
  • Yes, but only a small amount

    Votes: 8 20.0%
  • No

    Votes: 10 25.0%
  • We should increase the size of our armed forces.

    Votes: 6 15.0%

  • Total voters
    40
I've included several options..I think we can easily trim the armed forces in half and still be "safe". Our only threats are at least an ocean away and are not necessarily prominent or technologically advanced.

I say no. A well trained force is much superior than a drafted force.
 
I say no. A well trained force is much superior than a drafted force.

i must have missed something. has someone advocated a return to the use of a military draft?
 
i must have missed something. has someone advocated a return to the use of a military draft?

If you reduce the military's size then what do you think will happen when a war breaks out? Regardless if there is a draft or they enact bigger cash sign on bonuses or get a duty station in Germany or Japan as a after war sign on Bonus, inexperianced soldiers and marines are not as effective as experienced and well trained soldiers and marines.
 
I think there is plenty of room for reduction, but I do agree with Goshin. Even though military spending is a easy and possibly attractive place to cut spending, the bigger priority is social spending. Defense is not only an unquestionably legitimate role of government, its arguably the primary purpose (along with providing internal security through law enforcement and the courts).

Also cutting our defense spending requires rethinking out foreign policy. We can't make meaningful cuts and continue to play the world's police man or continue to embark on costly nation building expeditions. If took a more non-interventionist policy, acting only when there is a clear and pressing national interest at stake, there is room for plenty of spending cuts in defense. Now I don't want to cut so deeply that we lose our military pre-eminance. I never want to see the U.S. become "just another nation" in terms of military strength, which I know some people would love to see happen. I'm all for cutting our nuclear arsenal as long as we can maintain the thread of MAD against other nuclear powers. And I'm not a fan of cutting R&D spending, as our technological edge is our greatest advantage and often military technological advances bleed over into the commercial market.
 
I don't agree with cutting the size of the military, but do agree with making military spending more efficient. I don't know the best way to do this, but I know there are certainly places where it can be done. I have seen needless paperwork and overreactions cost the Navy at least tons of money. Also, although they claim the shipyard workers cost less to employ than military personnel, I would still argue that if there was a better way of instilling a sailor mentality into the shipyarders' work ethic, more would get done at less cost. We were all about getting a job done right, and going on liberty. The less time spent on the boat, particularly avoiding rework, the better morale was and the happier we were. I don't know much about the other branches inefficient spending. Some of the basics are probably the same, such as too much for parts and tools because of contracts.
 
I agree some trimmage of some of the excesses could be a good thing, BUT....


I think we need to cut social spending in half before we touch the military budget. It's the social spending that is killing our budget and bankrupting us. A third of our budget is DEBT... and one way or another the bulk of that budget is social spending. (ie wealth redistribution)

Interesting. I would do the exact opposite. I would cut military spending by 1/3 before I even touched social spending. The level of waste in the DoD is huge. I suppose this issue is a matter of perception.
 
If you reduce the military's size then what do you think will happen when a war breaks out? Regardless if there is a draft or they enact bigger cash sign on bonuses or get a duty station in Germany or Japan as a after war sign on Bonus, inexperianced soldiers and marines are not as effective as experienced and well trained soldiers and marines.

i can then conclude your position is we must maintain a multi-theatre sized volunteer military at all times, as a contingency for a massive war
is there anything less efficient than that?
having a ramped up military with no war to fight ... or is that why we find "opportunities" to use the military we have bought and paid for?
seems an unaffordable luxury with negaitive consequences
 
Think of the good we would do if we were to cut spending in half and use that money saved to feed the hungry and supply medicine to the sick all over the world, surely that would do much more good than occupying and liberating middle eastern countries who want nothing to do with us.

The US military does not good? What about Tsunami relief? Haiti? Humanitarian missions are huge expenses of defense dollars. Should we cut that ability too?
 
Interesting. I would do the exact opposite. I would cut military spending by 1/3 before I even touched social spending. The level of waste in the DoD is huge. I suppose this issue is a matter of perception.

You cannot just up and cut 1/3 from the DoD budget though without slamming readiness. Given time for the pentagon to plan for it, and it might be remotely possible, but to just cut it outright would have a major impact. A very large portion of the DoD budget is locked in for several years.
 
actually, no...that article addresses a portion of exactly what I said. The actual dollars spent on healthcare in the military is higher for the exact reasons I mentioned earlier.

And the portion it did address showed that at least one of the numbers you claimed(50b for direct health care costs) is wrong. Considering that you did not source any of the numbers you claimed, and the one I checked is well wrong, I have no reason to believe that your other numbers are even remotely right.
 
I'm not a big fan of wikipedia but eveyone else seems to like it so check this out: Military Health System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically:

The MHS executes a $42 billion budget and serves approximately 9.5 million beneficiaries, including Active Duty personnel and their families and retirees and their families.The actual cost of having a government run health care system for the military is higher [be]cause the wages and benefits paid for military personnel who work for the MHS and the retirees who formerly worked for it, is not included in the budget. MHS employs more than 137,000 personnel in 65 hospitals, 412 clinics, and 414 dental clinics at facilities across the nation and around the world, as well as in contingency and combat-theater operations worldwide.

and: http://www.defense.gov/news/2010%20Budget%20Proposal.pdf

used to show percenatage of US military facilities which are hospital or medical related: http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/BSR2008Baseline.pdf

sate of military healthcare: At U.S. military hospitals, 'everybody is overworked' - USATODAY.com
 
SO in what world does 42 = 50?
 
And the portion it did address showed that at least one of the numbers you claimed(50b for direct health care costs) is wrong. Considering that you did not source any of the numbers you claimed, and the one I checked is well wrong, I have no reason to believe that your other numbers are even remotely right.

http://www.defense.gov/news/2010%20Budget%20Proposal.pdf

Military Healthcare. Within this request, the department fully funds military healthcare,
which will cost more than $47 billion in fiscal 2010. The Department expects to continue to
work with the Congress to look for ways to slow the growth of medical costs while continuing to
provide high-quality care.
Caring for Our Wounded, Ill, and Injured. The department has no greater priority than
providing the highest quality support to wounded, ill, and injured soldiers, sailors, airmen,
Marines, and their families. The fiscal 2010 budget recognizes this responsibility and provides
$3.3 billion to support injured service members in their recovery, rehabilitation, and
reintegration. This funding provides additional case managers and mental health providers, an
expedited Disability Evaluation System, construction of 12 additional Army Warrior in
Transition complexes, and continued implementation of Walter Reed National Military Medical
Center and Fort Belvoir hospital BRAC projects within the National Capital Region. The budget
also includes $0.4 billion for medical research and development for traumatic brain injury,
psychological health, and other casualty care issues.

do the math...just that one "claim" is supported.
 
SO in what world does 42 = 50?

oh, brother. That number is obviously from a previous year....the point is:

The actual cost of having a government run health care system for the military is higher [be]cause the wages and benefits paid for military personnel who work for the MHS and the retirees who formerly worked for it, is not included in the budget.

If you want to believe that the only money used to support healthcare by the military is stamped "healthcare" in the budget....knock yourself out.
 
You cannot just up and cut 1/3 from the DoD budget though without slamming readiness. Given time for the pentagon to plan for it, and it might be remotely possible, but to just cut it outright would have a major impact. A very large portion of the DoD budget is locked in for several years.

I would say you are probably correct. My response was more of an absurd response to Goshen's absurd response.
 
Interesting. I would do the exact opposite. I would cut military spending by 1/3 before I even touched social spending. The level of waste in the DoD is huge. I suppose this issue is a matter of perception.


It just might have something to do with you being somewhat liberal and me being sorta conservative-ish. :mrgreen:
 
Why don't we just give up on social security? I mean at this point we're just throwing good money after bad. As soon as the remainder of the baby boomers retire, there won't be enough workers to support them and all those neat little statements that show how much I contributed and will get will be moot.

Why doesn't anyone recognize that social security eats up 20% of the budget while defense eat's up 23%? What do you get for that 20% vs 23%? Let's say we cut the defense budget...first thing to go will be pay and benefits which will lower a sizable contribution to social security. What do we do with the unemployed as a result of the personnel cut?

What does downsizing get us?

wtc-9-11.jpg

USS_Cole_damage.jpg
 
It just might have something to do with you being somewhat liberal and me being sorta conservative-ish. :mrgreen:

Gotta be it. Thanks for reminding me. :2razz:
 
Well I'm not American so I don't have that much knowledge about your military, but this I think is a clear signal that USA could spend less on the military.

Top 10 countries military spending.

USA 663 billion dollar

Total Allies: UK, France, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Italy 309 billion dollar

Total Potential enemies (not official enemies yet on the list) Russia, China 161 billion dollar

And India that can be said to be "neutral" 37 billion dollar

The list also goes on with a lot of allied countries to USA. But if you only look at the top 10 list, you can see that even in worst case scenario (China and Russia as allied enemies towards USA, and USA loosing some of their allies for example France and Saudi Arabia) the military spending of USA allieds alone would be bigger then the spending of USA enemies. Not then even counting USA own enormous military spending.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
And overall money spent means . . . what exactly?

It really means nothing - our economy is on a different scale than that of India. What might cost us $5.00 to cover might cost them $2.00 - personnel pay, health coverage, life insurance . . . travel (impossible to be in the military and not travel frequently) and merely the cost of living.

Also - how much does the average person get paid for being in the service in, say, Saudi Arabia - how is that $ in comparison to the average US soldier?

There are so many money issues it's hard to calculate it up on a balanced scale - you have to consider all these other factors and more.

If Saudi Arabia had our continent - and their economy - what would the difference be? . . There's all sorts of fun ways to try to play with the numbers but nothing is accurate. It is what it is and it's very complicated to compare merely on "overall amount spent"
 
Yes of course things are more complex and you can of course not look only at military spending. That rich countries like USA have of course both advantage as well as disadvantage compared to for example China. Advantage can be that USA are a democracy and thereby don't need to use the military to controle the own population and also gets more motivated soldiers. But also USA may also have advantage with a more educated population and more advanced level of acamedics and scientists that will help military reserach. But of course their can also be disadvantages for USA. But still the diffrences in numbers are so huge that USA should probably be able to spend less and still be safe and have global military influence. Take also for example that USA allieds UK, France, Spain, Italy, South Corea, Canada, Australia, Spain, Turkey, Israel, Greece, UAE, Netherlands, Poland, Colombia and Taiwan individialy spends more then USA first real enemy Iran on the list.
 
Military spending is something that you just can't know how much is worth it. Did we not get attacked because of spending? Ya just don't know.
 
Military spending is something that you just can't know how much is worth it. Did we not get attacked because of spending? Ya just don't know.

I feel comfortabel arguing that a lot of other countries, like Saudi Arabia - which is highly dependent on the US - don't spend enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom