The military budget of the United States

APACHERAT said:

I agree, the Navy's "Little Crappy Ship" (LCS) that can't fight. Billions spent and ships that can't put to sea and fight or sailors aren't trained to go to sea because they sit in sensitivity class rooms instead of training. Hundreds of millions being spent on removing urinals because they aren't PC and being replaced with PC crappers. Spending $27 per gallon for PC green jet fuel instead of politically incorrect $4 per gallon JP fuel. Spending $20,000 to kill one Taliban fighter with a Hell Fire Missile when a .25 cent bullet could do the same thing.

Click to expand...

Are you going to volunteer to go to Afghanistan or Iraq to fire the bullet? If not, then perhaps you should just butt out of the conversation. I love you guys that are so damned anxious to put other people in danger.

In my opinion, we should never look at the military budget exclusively as a dollar amount.

Rather, we should have tasks we want them capable of, and parameters for how we want said tasks accomplished.
Then we determine how much it will cost to do those things, and from there adjust accordingly.


Because frankly, having certain capabilities at hand if needed is worth almost any amount.

It's a thing, whatever you call it, that you get what you prepare for. The US military isn't intended to defend the US, it's intended to intervene anywhere in the world. There's people who say that being prepared to intervene anywhere in the world is necessary for the defense of the US and those same people, with their interventions, make their own prophesies come true. It's the same thing with the war on drugs, the same self-fulfilling prophesy phenomenon. The mere existence of the power structure proves it's necessity.
Good luck to any American who tries to make a case for a reduced military. He's obviously anti-American...

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Wiggen said:

Are you going to volunteer to go to Afghanistan or Iraq to fire the bullet?

Click to expand...

Doesn't look like it. The last U.S. Marines just departed Afghanistan a few hours ago.

polgara said:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

With Russia energetically increasing the size of its military, both in personnel and weaponry, I don't understand why we are decreasing ours. We are hearing, almost on a daily basis. about top level experienced military personnel being fired. Fired! How this is supposed to make us safer is never discussed - it's just what is being done with no explanation from the administration. Last I looked, peace hasn't suddenly engulfed the world - the trend appears to be the opposite. Why are we downsizing now? What is the rationale behind this? :shock:

Click to expand...

Since I been in the army and also worked for them, either upsizing or downsizing has been more political than to meet the actual security needs of the nation. The military is usually the first thing cut when government wants to save a dime. Some presidents are more pro military than others. So we have wild swings when it comes to military manpower and spending. That is a very inefficient way to run and operate. But the politics of the times usually dictates how much will be spent and congress dictates on what.

The biggest problem today or at least before I retired was congress using the military as a civilian jobs creator and sustainer than as a national defense apparatus.

eohrnberger said:

Russia? The their weak economy? I'm far more worried about China and their booming economy, considering the militarily aggressive moves they've exhibited in the last year or so. Aren't China and Japan still 'arguing' over some island or another?

Click to expand...

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

Russia doesn't have a weak economy from what I've been reading. They have more oil than the Saudis, and they have been flexing their muscles on the world stage with good effect. They appear to have both the Ukraine and the EU apprehensive, for lack of a better word, about their agenda. They are partnering with China in many areas, which is apparent. Putin wants Russia to be a world leader again, and he's working toward that goal, IMO.

Granted, the average Russian citizen may not be doing all that much better, but the government sure has lots of money for the things they want to do. Sound familiar? Russian government is backed by very wealthy enthusiastic supporters who do not wish to be ruled by Western powers, via a US-dominated global financial system. Hence the current determination by both Russia and China to do away with our "favored nation status" that forces the world to use our petro-dollar worldwide in trade. They want a basket of currencies used for international commerce instead of just the dollar. If they succeed, and they are inking agreements with many countries that we do business with..., we certainly won't be better off!

polgara said:

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

Russia doesn't have a weak economy from what I've been reading. They have more oil than the Saudis, and they have been flexing their muscles on the world stage with good effect. They appear to have both the Ukraine and the EU apprehensive, for lack of a better word, about their agenda. They are partnering with China in many areas, which is apparent. Putin wants Russia to be a world leader again, and he's working toward that goal, IMO.

Granted, the average Russian citizen may not be doing all that much better, but the government sure has lots of money for the things they want to do. Sound familiar? Russian government is backed by very wealthy enthusiastic supporters who do not wish to be ruled by Western powers, via a US-dominated global financial system. Hence the current determination by both Russia and China to do away with our "favored nation status" that forces the world to use our petro-dollar worldwide in trade. They want a basket of currencies used for international commerce instead of just the dollar. If they succeed, and they are inking agreements with many countries that we do business with..., we certainly won't be better off!

Click to expand...

Greeting and palpitations Polgara! :2wave:

I recall back when Russia first moved on the Crimea and Ukraine. Some were saying that should the EU stop buying their LNG, that their economic hardship would be almost immediate, and they'd not be able to continue for very long. We the Crimea and Ukraine situation hasn't changed and it's been some months now.

Might it be the punditry were wrong then? From your description, it sounds as if Russia is on pretty solid economic footing for this, which, I have to admit, makes sense, as Russians do tend to be long in the planning. So much for the punditry being a blind squirrel on this occasion.

eohrnberger said:

Greeting and palpitations Polgara! :2wave:

I recall back when Russia first moved on the Crimea and Ukraine. Some were saying that should the EU stop buying their LNG, that their economic hardship would be almost immediate, and they'd not be able to continue for very long. We the Crimea and Ukraine situation hasn't changed and it's been some months now.

Might it be the punditry were wrong then? From your description, it sounds as if Russia is on pretty solid economic footing for this, which, I have to admit, makes sense, as Russians do tend to be long in the planning. So much for the punditry being a blind squirrel on this occasion.

Click to expand...

IMO, if the EU and the Ukraine don't cause "behavior" problems for Russia, they'll get along fine. I can't shake the feeling that Putin has bigger fish to fry than that, though. You don't see China or Russia involving themselves in the ME, except to provide arms to the whoever is willing to buy them, which is a strictly financial thing. They aren't sending planes or ships or drones or personnel that I know of, but their people aren't getting beheaded either. The ME has been fighting each other over a religious war for over 1,350 years, and it's almost seems as if Russia and China have adopted an attitude of "carry on because we just don't much care one way or another." Russia may have learned that lesson in Afghanistan, which nearly bankrupted them before they finally withdrew in defeat. Nothing has changed in the ME except to get worse, so do they expect and hope that the same thing happens to us? Wouldn't surprise me!. :sigh:

polgara said:

IMO, if the EU and the Ukraine don't cause "behavior" problems for Russia, they'll get along fine. I can't shake the feeling that Putin has bigger fish to fry than that, though. You don't see China or Russia involving themselves in the ME, except to provide arms to the whoever is willing to buy them, which is a strictly financial thing. They aren't sending planes or ships or drones or personnel that I know of, but their people aren't getting beheaded either. The ME has been fighting each other over a religious war for over 1,350 years, and it's almost seems as if Russia and China have adopted an attitude of "carry on because we just don't much care one way or another." Russia may have learned that lesson in Afghanistan, which nearly bankrupted them before they finally withdrew in defeat. Nothing has changed in the ME except to get worse, so do they expect and hope that the same thing happens to us? Wouldn't surprise me!. :sigh:

Click to expand...

The super powers take turns beating themselves senseless and to a pulp against the same rock? :sigh: I guess stranger things have been known to happen.

shrubnose said:

And more of it is being wasted funding the USA's military/industrialcomplex which President Eisenhower warned us about in a famous speech.

The USA spends more on preparations for war than all of its enemies combined. A lot of that money is wasted and could be better spent on other things.

Click to expand...

Or better yet just not spent. Or taxed.

Spend as much as we need in order to maintain the greatest military on earth.

I was born in Sweden and immigrated to the US as a kid. Sweden recently had an episode where a Russian submarine was literally off the coast of Stockholm (the capital) making distress calls. Sweden scrambled their navy together to try to locate the submarine, but couldn't do it. The Russian sub got within yards of the Swedish capital uncontested, and got away scott free.

This past Easter, Russia illegally conducted military exercises over Swedish soil, simulating an attack on the Swedish island of Gotland. Sweden could not scramble an aircraft together fast enough to go up and meet the Russian plane, a national embarrasment. NATO, on the other hand, did scramble a plane and chased the Russian plane away. (Sweden is not a NATO member).

No, Sweden do a lot of things right, but as far as self defense goes, they lag way behind. One of the best things about living in the USA is the peace of mind that comes from knowing that we could kick anyone in the world's butts if push came to shove. Russia would never in a million years dream of screwing with the Americans the way they screwed with the Swedes. And I like it that way.

Spend as much as you need. Cut costs elsewhere.

Capster78 said:

This comes from complete ignorance. War is not just a battle fought on the battlefield. War is economic, technologic and geopolitic. Without the joint security treaties we have in Asia, that part of the country will soon make the middle east look like a playground. There are still deep seated mistrusts in Asia between Japan, China, and Korea(s). Each of those countries also have deep seated mistrusts with outside countries they boarder as well as strong alliances. All of whom are waiting for chinks in each others armor to exploit. Basically, there are several potential hot spots that exist there. Many of which are avoided by our joint security treaties. Without US presence in Japan and Korea, there would no longer be a referee to any small squabbles that arise. The trust those nations have in each other manifests itself thru the US as an intermediary a lot of times. I believe our post WW2 strategy will be looked back on by historians as one of the greatest contributions the US has ever made to the world. We have been directly responsible for the peace that has ushered in prosperity for almost all of the 1st world countries. The reason people make the argument you do, is because they have never lived in a world post WW2 when the US was not intensely involved in international politics.

Click to expand...

That is what internationalist/globalist, neocon and other pieces of **** want people to believe.That somehow if we are not sticking our noses into everyone else's business that the world will go to hell in a hand-basket and that will eventually effect us.

Our defense should only be focused on defending our country from inside the US, not other countries, here.Our troops should be here in the US defending our borders and waters, not inside other countries.If another country attacks our country.Then our policy should be to bomb the living **** out of it and cripple it.No more this nonsense of rebuilding or trying to stabilize countries that attack us.

I believe in deep military cuts. There is no reason the US should spend more money on its military than the next 10 countries with the largest military budget combined. The US is still spending at cold war levels long after the cold war has ended.

Having said that, we have to keep in mind that the USDOD is the largest employer in the world even before you start counting all of the military contractors and the indirect jobs they create. Deep cuts done without the proper preparation would be disastrous for the US economy. Cuts to the military have to be matched with increases to other branches of the government that can create jobs. I'm not sure what those branches would be, space exploration is a clear candidate, as is NOAA, but those departments can't absorb the amount of money we are talking about here.

America, imo, should pull all her troops home immediately, close all foreign military bases and turn from a huge, massively expensive, peace time armed forces to a tiny regular armed forces with a huge militia (reserves).

As for the other countries, let them look after themselves for once.

DA60 said:

America, imo, should pull all her troops home immediately, close all foreign military bases and turn from a huge, massively expensive, peace time armed forces to a tiny regular armed forces with a huge militia (reserves).

As for the other countries, let them look after themselves for once.

Click to expand...

I don't think isolation is possible in 21st century international politics.

shrubnose said:

And more of it is being wasted funding the USA's military/industrialcomplex which President Eisenhower warned us about in a famous speech.

The USA spends more on preparations for war than all of its enemies combined. A lot of that money is wasted and could be better spent on other things.

Click to expand...

A) The Majority of Defense Spending is either on personnel, or the gear that keeps said personnel alive in Combat.

B) You don't determine defense spending by picking a number - that is idiotic. You determine defense spending by establishing your mission set and working backwards to figure out what you need.

Also worth noting:

The DOD Budget Proposal for FY 2015 is $495.6 Bn, not 640.

Anyway. Given that the premise of the question is dumb, I went ahead and voted 900 Bn + on the theory that all former and current active duty Marines should get a $100,000 bonus For Being Awesome.

Can't pick an exact number, it doesn't work that way.

I think the fact that DHS and VA are counted separately is something to consider.

jamesrage said:

That is what internationalist/globalist, neocon and other pieces of **** want people to believe.That somehow if we are not sticking our noses into everyone else's business that the world will go to hell in a hand-basket and that will eventually effect us.

Click to expand...

It's ignorant people who believe that no one else will step in and take our place. Again, people on your side of the fence are ignorant as to how geopolitics works. If we were not involved in Japan and Korea, China would be. If we were not involved in the ME, Russia would be. Imagine what kind of leverage they would have over international policy if they were the ones calling the shots in those parts of the world. If that were the case, We would have gone the way the USSR went. Without getting involved in geopolitics, there would have been no way we would have defeated Russia during the cold war. Its not that I want people to BELIEVE what I am saying, because there is plenty of historical evidence to back up what I am saying. People like you have to prove that if we were to remove ourselves from the world stage that China, Russia, India and Japan could be trusted to take our place. To believe that no one will fill that vacume is as ignorant as ignorant can be.

Our defense should only be focused on defending our country from inside the US, not other countries, here.Our troops should be here in the US defending our borders and waters, not inside other countries.If another country attacks our country.Then our policy should be to bomb the living **** out of it and cripple it.No more this nonsense of rebuilding or trying to stabilize countries that attack us.

Click to expand...

That's the problem, its not the 16th century anymore where defending your boarders is a viable national defense strategy. The US can be attacked without even crossing the Atlantic or Pacific. Even back then, any military leader that knew anything about defense knows that there is no such thing as an inpenetrable fort. The worst possible defense strategy to have is to allow an enemy to come anywhere close to your boarder and be able to lob munitions into it. Our defense strategy is pre-emptive and ensures that if someone wants to confront us, they will confront us on THEIR soil, not ours. If they want to fight us, it is their military and their citizenry that will suffer, not ours.

We have already made HUGE mistakes even entertaining people who hold your views. People who hold your views are DIRECTLY responsible for every major war we have lost since WW2. Also, they are directly responsible for the lives lost due to the wishy washyness of American forign policy. LETS GO TO WAR!!!! ARGGHHH... uh wait... a guy got killed... RETREAT!!!!.. I think we should ship all the anti-war and isolationists to france where they could live a much happier life.

Capster78 said:

It's ignorant people who believe that no one else will step in and take our place. Again, people on your side of the fence are ignorant as to how geopolitics works. If we were not involved in Japan and Korea, China would be. If we were not involved in the ME, Russia would be. Imagine what kind of leverage they would have over international policy if they were the ones calling the shots in those parts of the world. If that were the case, We would have gone the way the USSR went. Without getting involved in geopolitics, there would have been no way we would have defeated Russia during the cold war. Its not that I want people to BELIEVE what I am saying, because there is plenty of historical evidence to back up what I am saying. People like you have to prove that if we were to remove ourselves from the world stage that China, Russia, India and Japan could be trusted to take our place. To believe that no one will fill that vacume is as ignorant as ignorant can be.



That's the problem, its not the 16th century anymore where defending your boarders is a viable national defense strategy. The US can be attacked without even crossing the Atlantic or Pacific. Even back then, any military leader that knew anything about defense knows that there is no such thing as an inpenetrable fort. The worst possible defense strategy to have is to allow an enemy to come anywhere close to your boarder and be able to lob munitions into it. Our defense strategy is pre-emptive and ensures that if someone wants to confront us, they will confront us on THEIR soil, not ours. If they want to fight us, it is their military and their citizenry that will suffer, not ours.

.

Click to expand...

Yes keep spewing the globalist/internationalist, neocon and other piece of **** lies. What goes on outside of America's borders is none of our business.

We have already made HUGE mistakes even entertaining people who hold your views. People who hold your views are DIRECTLY responsible for every major war we have lost since WW2. Also, they are directly responsible for the lives lost due to the wishy washyness of American forign policy. LETS GO TO WAR!!!! ARGGHHH... uh wait... a guy got killed... RETREAT!!!!.

Click to expand...

This interventionism is what got us into this mess in the first place.WWI for example is a result of no one minding their own ****ing business.Which resulted in WWII. Our involvement in WWII was a result of the US not minding it's own business by trying to scold Japan by imposing trade sanctions on it.Korean war and Vietnam was a result of the US not minding it's own business because we had to stop them thar e-vile commies from taking over. The nonsense going on in the middle east is a result of our government installing puppet dictators so we can get their oil.

I think we should ship all the anti-war and isolationists to france where they could live a much happier life.

Click to expand...

I think every noecon pieces of **** trying push us into another war or into some other country's business should immediately be drafted to serve as a E-1 private in a infantry unit as a machine gunner. Maybe then those piece of **** neocons and other globalist/internationalist scum won't be so eager to push us into another interventionist war.

jamesrage said:

Yes keep spewing the globalist/internationalist, neocon and other piece of **** lies. What goes on outside of America's borders is none of our business.

Click to expand...

We have a lot of "business" outside of our boarders that we need to attend to. Take an economics course. Even basic economics will help you realize how much a countries forign policy plays into their economic health.

This interventionism is what got us into this mess in the first place.WWI for example is a result of no one minding their own ****ing business.Which resulted in WWII. Our involvement in WWII was a result of the US not minding it's own business by trying to scold Japan by imposing trade sanctions on it.Korean war and Vietnam was a result of the US not minding it's own business because we had to stop them thar e-vile commies from taking over. The nonsense going on in the middle east is a result of our government installing puppet dictators so we can get their oil.

Click to expand...

An idealists view. It would be also nice if people would not kill each other, it would be nice if there were no thieves in the world, it would be nice if people did not need the police to resolve conflicts for them... all these things would be nice. But the reality is, people kill each other, people steal from each other, and we need the police to stop these people by locking them up so the rest of us can live a safer life. It is completely ignorant to think that everything will be alright if the US retreats behind its boarders. That suddenly, the all the worlds problems will be solved. When we left Iraq, did things magically get better over there. Nope! They got 100 times worse then they ever were because someone stepped in and filled the vacume we left behind. Same would happen if we retreated off the world stage. And I don't think I could state this enough, you are completely ignorant of geopolitics and the role it played in the cold war. If you studied it AT ALL you would see the reason behind the mess that resulted from the cold war and why we had to support who we did.

I think every noecon pieces of **** trying push us into another war or into some other country's business should immediately be drafted to serve as a E-1 private in a infantry unit as a machine gunner. Maybe then those piece of **** neocons and other globalist/internationalist scum won't be so eager to push us into another interventionist war.

Click to expand...

Well, that would not be hard for me, as I am in the military already.

American said:

**** President Eisenhower, okay?? The ****ing hypocrite presided over the most expensive war in human history, WWII. It dwarfs everything before or after.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on this further?

Capster78 said:

We have a lot of "business" outside of our boarders that we need to attend to. Take an economics course. Even basic economics will help you realize how much a countries forign policy plays into their economic health.

An idealists view. It would be also nice if people would not kill each other, it would be nice if there were no thieves in the world, it would be nice if people did not need the police to resolve conflicts for them... all these things would be nice. But the reality is, people kill each other, people steal from each other, and we need the police to stop these people by locking them up so the rest of us can live a safer life. It is completely ignorant to think that everything will be alright if the US retreats behind its boarders. That suddenly, the all the worlds problems will be solved. When we left Iraq, did things magically get better over there. Nope! They got 100 times worse then they ever were because someone stepped in and filled the vacume we left behind. Same would happen if we retreated off the world stage. And I don't think I could state this enough, you are completely ignorant of geopolitics and the role it played in the cold war. If you studied it AT ALL you would see the reason behind the mess that resulted from the cold war and why we had to support who we did.

Click to expand...

The rest of the world is not our business.**** Iraq,**** Afghanistan and all those other countries. I didn't say **** would be fine if we stayed out of everyone else's business.If we are attacked then we bomb the living **** out that country,cripple it and leave them to their own devices. Just because some **** happens in another country does not mean we need to come in like Captiain Save a Hoe.I value the lives of our countrymen over the lives of foreigners in other countries.

Well, that would not be hard for me, as I am in the military already.

Click to expand...

Are you a grunt or are you a pog?

jamesrage said:

I could answer that question if I knew everything our military spends money on. Expensive biofuel programs should be scrapped.Troops station in Korea,Italy,Germany, Japan and other countries should be scrapped.Any military personal spying on Americans should be scrapped.Troops involve in countries we are not at war with should be scrapped. Any programs that provide military aid and arms to other countries should be scrapped.There are probably other things that can be cut too. Troops should be only used to defend our country, attack countries that actually attack us unprovoked first and troops stationed on our borders to actually prevent illegal crossing into our country and to use force if necessary to do it.

Click to expand...

The problem with your statement is that having troops stationed in other countries defendes our contry by making sure other countries do not invade our allies. The same goes with providing equipment to our allies, it helps us increasing to strenght of our allies so they do not rely on us in and acual wartime situation. It is espesialy important to have troops in Korea, to detire Nourth Korea, and in Japan to detire CHina from invading Japan.