What would you do with our defense spending?

What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.

Kal'Stang said:

What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, we need a president that doesn't come across as an unreliable ally.
Obama aims to reinvigorate Asia strategy - The Washington Post

Giant trampoline.

None of the above.

I would re-organize the whole defense department. Change the way it contracts and acquires weapons systems. Reduce the officer to enlisted ratio. Replace the current Officer promotion systems with one that is centric around leadership instead of ass kissing. Restructure commands rank requirements. Create a new Department to create, train and maintain an occupation force. Determine our actual needs and build forces necessary to meet those needs. Only after all of that could a determination of the actual budget be carried out. I believe it would decrease, quite a bit, but cannot say for sure.

I really dont understand why there is a question about this. We certainly need to decrease it. Were it not for all the pork we would not spend such stupid money on defesene. Our 20 year old birds are the best in the world and we buy new all the time. Why is that? I think we need to bring our bases back from all over the world, reduce the standing army (not hte Marine Corps) and strengthen reserves. The only rival the US might have is if Martians invade or there is a Zombie attack. Otherwise no other cournty in the world has got anything. Our only weakness is political stupidity. But yea, Obama is a weak ally. You guys are hive minded Obama hate all the time.

I'd decrease it close to 80%. The military industrial complex has eaten up enough of taxpayer money.

Kal'Stang said:

What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.

Click to expand...

Yes I would decrease spending dramatically on our most of our military. The Army and Air Force have no constitutional basis so they should be eliminated and the equipment and personnel folded into the Marines and Navy respectively. The budget should be reduced greatly to the tune of ninety percent for now. The only increase in budget would be to two items the replacement and refurbishment and increase of or nuclear stockpile, and for anti missile defense systems. In the meantime the rest of the government would by 90% as well striving to pay down as much debt as quickly as possible. I would also release and allow all of our resulting excess military equipment to be sold first to citizens here and then to other nations and citizens. I would also encourage our manufactures to design and build equipment for sale to the rest of the world. Our new defense strategy would be to become the arms merchant of the world making sure in every war on earth our weapons are the ones being used on both sides. The idea being to make it more expensive for the Chinese and Russians and whoever else to build their own native weapons systems. It would also increase our resident manufacturing capabilities. In the Syrian conflict for instance we should be selling BOTH sides weapons. If they come up with the cash we come up with the weapons. Since it happens to be a proxy war between the Saudis and the Iranians guess whose pockets we will be draining? The Ukrainian conflict same thing arm them up with guns tanks and planes, for a fee of course. We would be conforming with our treaty obligations and not being directly involved. NATO will also be needing a big arms infusion to ward off the Russian bear so there is a huge sales opportunity there as well as a way to make Europe fight their own conflicts. Our aim would be to become literally the arsenal of freedom and democracy by being the worlds arms dealer. The side benefits would be the ability to shrink our military footprint and budget and to give our economy a nice boost. One way to fund the military on the cheap or better still would fund them almost completely would be to utilize them as a mercenary force for sale to the highest bidder. The benefits would be our forces get combat experience and be very well paid to the job. I have more but I will stop at this and see what reactions if any I get.

First thing I'd do is make sure $7,600 is not being spent on coffee makers, or $604 for toilet seats, or other outrageous prices for easy to obtain commodities.

Second would be going through every single line item on the budget. I'd be looking for waste, over-pricing, redundancy, cost-to-benefit ratio, applicability, longevity, etc.

Third would be eliminating redundancy amongst the services while integrating them to maximize cooperation and cost effectiveness. For instance, I don't believe that the U.S. military needs two versions of the infantry - one Army, one Marine Corps. - when one of them can get the job done by itself and historically with less money and the "new toys fresh out of the box." Another would be every service having its own Air Wing. The Air Force would be the singular Air Force of the United States. Another would be all four services having its own intelligence division. The elimination of the four would pave the way for greater influence by the D.I.A. Reliance on the N.S.A., N.G.A. and N.R.O. would similarly increase.

Fourth, though it might come at a greater cost, all components used in the U.S. military's arsenal would be American made to the greatest extent possible and with stone-cold preferences I.e. components from China would never be accepted whereas components from an ally like Canada or Australia would.

Fifth would be diving into the depths of Research & Development, which includes DARPA. Things like applicability, longevity, cost-to-benefit ratio, etc would be considered. The Office of Net Assessment would play a pivotal role in what R&D spends its money on. As an aside, the days of being swindled by the likes of Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman would come to an abrupt end.

But then what do we do with the money we have not spent on the military?

Save the money and reduce the deficit, or spend it on other more important things like infrastructure or healthcare?

I would cut the Military Offense expenditures by at least 75% and use the same monies to develop a de-centralized Energy distribution network throughout the Nation. Small electric generation owned by the local communities using waste or locally grown renewables for fuel. Install PV and Wind generators and again, small units serviced by the local community. The key is LOCAL at every opportunity, Centralized distribution of anything is Centralized collection of profits, like a huge straw sucking money out of LOCAL communities. We need to cure that. The Cure needs a starting point.

Henry David said:

But then what do we do with the money we have not spent on the military?

Save the money and reduce the deficit, or spend it on other more important things like infrastructure or healthcare?

Click to expand...

Infrastructure, job creation/programs, research & development, paying down the debt/deficit - things like that.

I would expand our commitment to veterans, and then cut it down to a peacetime force. Interventionism would end except in the direct of circumstances. I'd use the savings to nation build here in the states.

Kal'Stang said:

What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.

Click to expand...

I would moderately increase it and dramatically shift our emphasis away from COIN and small wars. The war fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has left our conventional priorities in serious need of attention.

Kal'Stang said:

What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.

Click to expand...

I would cut spending but I would choose which programs that get the ax and adjust the cuts based on that. I would cut the navy from buying bio-fuel. I would replace many of the POGs with their civilian counterparts if it is cheaper to hire them instead of using military for that job.I would cut any CIA programs that outside of foreign spying.I would cut all domestic spying and ban phone companies and ISPs from storing certain information so that the government has nothing to demand to demand from those companies. I would also close all over seas bases and move them along our borders to use force to secure our borders.I would ban military aid for other countries.

TeleKat said:

I'd decrease it close to 80%. The military industrial complex has eaten up enough of taxpayer money.

Click to expand...

You cant just say "decrease it by 80%". When you do something like that, invariably, the soldier and family members suffer. Cut 20% and you will cut 20% of service and Soldier functions. You wont touch contractor and cost excesses.

I would increase military spending, but only in areas where it is needed: soldier pay and benefits, and technological advancements. I am a Democrat, but I believe, as I have stated in other threads, that we must maintain the most powerful military in the world so that we do not have to use it. Simply put, if we are strong enough, no one will challenge us.

Now, that being said, I also feel that we should not use that might in order to just gain access to oil reserves and the like, but rather to defend our values of freedom and human rights around the world.

Decrease it by at least half. Even with half of the resources we would still have the wherewithal to put together a massice military force in time of need.

VanceMack said:

You cant just say "decrease it by 80%". When you do something like that, invariably, the soldier and family members suffer. Cut 20% and you will cut 20% of service and Soldier functions. You wont touch contractor and cost excesses.

Click to expand...

We wouldn't really have soldiers. I'd end the wars, pull all of our military bases, and end all entangling alliances. Essentially when I get done, we won't have a need or a want for a standing army. Should we get invaded, which would be highly unlikely, then people will sign up for the military and fight. However, considering most of the population is armed and would be even more so if I also had the power to abolish all standing gun control legislation...I find that highly unlikely.

TeleKat said:

We wouldn't really have soldiers. I'd end the wars, pull all of our military bases, and end all entangling alliances. Essentially when I get done, we won't have a need or a want for a standing army. Should we get invaded, which would be highly unlikely, then people will sign up for the military and fight. However, considering most of the population is armed and would be even more so if I also had the power to abolish all standing gun control legislation...I find that highly unlikely.

Click to expand...

And the sky would be purple, and everyone would have a pony, and there would be rainbows during sunny days, and pooh would smell like flowers.

Dangerous world out there. You arent going to stand up an army when you need it. When you need it it will already be too late.

"Water is wet, the sky is blue, and old Satan Clause...he's out there and he's just getting stronger. Be prepared. That's my motto."

VanceMack said:

And the sky would be purple, and everyone would have a pony, and there would be rainbows during sunny days, and pooh would smell like flowers.

Dangerous world out there. You arent going to stand up an army when you need it. When you need it it will already be too late.

"Water is wet, the sky is blue, and old Satan Clause...he's out there and he's just getting stronger. Be prepared. That's my motto."

Click to expand...

No country would attempt to or succeed at invading a fully armed populace. When nearly every man and woman in the country has a gun, you're f*****. No one would even try it.

TeleKat said:

No country would attempt to or succeed at invading a fully armed populace. When nearly every man and woman in the country has a gun, you're f*****. No one would even try it.

Click to expand...

Its a great theory...

And what of our allies? I get the notion of Libertarian isolationism...but...you realize how quick the world turns with a US isolationist policy...right?

but the sky IS pretty there.

TeleKat said:

No country would attempt to or succeed at invading a fully armed populace. When nearly every man and woman in the country has a gun, you're f*****. No one would even try it.

Click to expand...

An armed populace is no guarantee against an invasion from a foreign enemy that has fighter jets, bombers, drones, tanks, armored vehicles, etc.

Jango said:

An armed populace is no guarantee against an invasion from a foreign enemy that has fighter jets, bombers, drones, tanks, armored vehicles, etc.

Click to expand...

Who said we wouldn't have those as well? I certainly didn't. I said that there should be no standing army, as in soliders sitting around getting paid to wait for someone to invade us. That doesn't mean our military can't have equipment in store. I said reduce it around 80% not 100%.

Anything but decrease it.

Wow...88% for defense spending cuts so far in this poll...that is encouraging.

I guess the neocon's have not seen this thread yet.


Me...I would cut spending by half, mothball half the fleet, bring all the troops home immediately, close virtually all foreign bases and end all military assistance to other countries.

In short...a Neocon nightmare.