• 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!

Cut Militaty Budget in Half

Should US cut Military budget by 50%


  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,840
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Our Military budget is $600 Billion. If we cut it in half, that would give each man woman and child in America roughly a $1000 in their pocket or $3000 to each tax payer depending on how you want to do your math.

IMO, we can easily protect our nation on $300B annually, probably could even do it for $100B if we tried. But, for now, lets just consider cutting it in half.
 
Congratulations. This is the most childish thread of the week.
 
Congratulations. This is the most childish thread of the week.

We spend more on the military than the next 10 nations combined. You big government types never can get enough of spending other people's money, can you?

We wasted 4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan alone on foreigners yet if someone suggests we spend even 1% on actual Americans you start loud autistic screeching about "socialism".
 
Such a thing would only hurt the actual military and leave unmolested the fat defense contracts that employ civilians across the nation to create toys that the military doesn't need. Case in point:

- One of the things that Clinton used to address the national debt and deficit in the 1990s was defense spending.

- The Active Duty military experienced years and years of reduced training, equipment on lots "awaiting parts," and borrowing ammo from other units to simply annually qualify with weapons. Then 9/11 happened. Uh-oh.

- After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the first thing that Democrats did was exploit the military and pretend to care about their lack of body armor and UpArmor for vehicles.

You know what wasn't hurt? Those fat-ass defense contracts that gave jobs to civilians across the nation to build systems like the F/A-22 that was never used in Iraq or Afghanistan because of its expense and impracticability. This was an F-22 system against Soviet Migs that was argued to be an air-to-ground weapon for the troop in the early 1990s and redesignated the F/A-22 just to keep the program alive after the Cold War ended. In the mean time, Army and Marine communicators in the field were stacking close-air support missions from available (but limited) tried-and-true aircraft and ground troops were buying body armor off the Internet between 2003 and at least 2011. There was simply not enough to go around for what the government wanted the troops to do. Oh, the F-22 or F/A-22, now the F-22 again? It was first used a couple years ago over Syria. But hey...pretty plane.

So cutting the Defense budget by "50%" would only hurt the actual military, not dent the fat cat profiteers and Senators who get elected for opening another Lockheed or Oshkosh factory in their state.
 
Last edited:
Such a thing would only hurt the actual military and leave unmolested the fat defense contracts that employ civilians across the nation to create toys that the military doesn't need. Case in point:

- One of the things that Clinton used to address the national debt and deficit in the 1990s was defense spending.

- The Active Duty military experienced years and years of reduced training, equipment on lots "awaiting parts," and borrowing ammo from other units to simply annually qualify with weapons. Then 9/11 happened. Uh-oh.

- After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the first thing that Democrats did was exploit the military and pretend to care about their lack of body armor and UpArmor for vehicles.

You know what wasn't hurt? Those fat-ass defense contracts that gave jobs to civilians across the nation to build systems like the F/A-22 that was never used in Iraq or Afghanistan because of its expense and impracticability. This was an F-22 system against Soviet Migs that was argued to be an air-to-ground weapon for the troop in the early 1990s and redesignated the F/A-22 just to keep the program alive after the Cold War ended. In the mean time, Army and Marine communicators in the field were stacking close-air support missions from available (but limited) tried-and-true aircraft and ground troops were buying body armor off the Internet between 2003 and at least 2011. There was simply not enough to go around for what the government wanted the troops to do. Oh, the F-22 or F/A-22, now the F-22 again? It was first used a couple years ago over Syria. But hey...pretty plane.

So cutting the Defense budget by "50%" would only hurt the actual military, not dent the fat cat profiteers and Senators who get elected for opening another Lockheed or Oshkosh factory in their state.

I used to recall weapon systems in world war 2 did not cost as much to make as modern ones do.

I mean the cost of a p-51 mustang in today’s price values was around 500,000 dollars per fighter. Why can’t we make an f 16 as affordable as a p 51 mustang?
 
Our Military budget is $600 Billion. If we cut it in half, that would give each man woman and child in America roughly a $1000 in their pocket or $3000 to each tax payer depending on how you want to do your math.

IMO, we can easily protect our nation on $300B annually, probably could even do it for $100B if we tried. But, for now, lets just consider cutting it in half.

I agree completely. Start with the carriers
 
The DoD's budget is $600.. Our 'military' budget is actually much higher.

If they want to truly cut the Fed spending, then do it across the board, INCLUDING the military.
 
Our Military budget is $600 Billion. If we cut it in half, that would give each man woman and child in America roughly a $1000 in their pocket or $3000 to each tax payer depending on how you want to do your math.

IMO, we can easily protect our nation on $300B annually, probably could even do it for $100B if we tried. But, for now, lets just consider cutting it in half.

Liberals would be the first to scream to high heaven if we were attacked by either Russia, China or some other nut case government and wonder why we weren't prepared.

Liberals would probably be the last to volunteer to service if we were attack. All the safe rooms would loaded to capacity and Canadian/US border would be overwhelmed.
 
Liberals would be the first to scream to high heaven if we were attacked by either Russia, China or some other nut case government and wonder why we weren't prepared.

Liberals would probably be the last to volunteer to service if we were attack. All the safe rooms would loaded to capacity and Canadian/US border would be overwhelmed.

$300 Billion per year is not enough to be prepared? Come on. Be real here.
 
$300 Billion per year is not enough to be prepared? Come on. Be real here.

Do you think $300 billion would have been enough in today's dollars in the two front the US fought in WWII? Our Military was falling apart under Obama and needs to be undated to protect us from that possible two front war.
 
I used to recall weapon systems in world war 2 did not cost as much to make as modern ones do.

I mean the cost of a p-51 mustang in today’s price values was around 500,000 dollars per fighter. Why can’t we make an f 16 as affordable as a p 51 mustang?

That's because World War II was about total war and involved the nation for an expressed national mission. Today it is about limited war, in which most of the population has nothing to do with, and the maintenance of the military business that creates jobs.
 
Our Military budget is $600 Billion. If we cut it in half, that would give each man woman and child in America roughly a $1000 in their pocket or $3000 to each tax payer depending on how you want to do your math.
Correction: What it would do is give Congress 300 billion more money to spend; if you think we taxpayers would see a dollar of that cut I have a bridge in San Francisco I can let you have for a very reasonable price.

calamity said:
IMO, we can easily protect our nation on $300B annually, probably could even do it for $100B if we tried. But, for now, lets just consider cutting it in half.
Actually, I have TWO bridges in SF - how about a package deal? :cool:
 
That's because World War II was about total war and involved the nation for an expressed national mission. Today it is about limited war, in which most of the population has nothing to do with, and the maintenance of the military business that creates jobs.

But why are so many of our weapon systems so bloody expensive?
 
Liberals would be the first to scream to high heaven if we were attacked by either Russia, China or some other nut case government and wonder why we weren't prepared.

Liberals would probably be the last to volunteer to service if we were attack. All the safe rooms would loaded to capacity and Canadian/US border would be overwhelmed.

Painting with broad brushes usually results in a bad paint job and the painter getting paint all over themselves, like you just did.
 
Such a thing would only hurt the actual military and leave unmolested the fat defense contracts that employ civilians across the nation to create toys that the military doesn't need. Case in point:

- One of the things that Clinton used to address the national debt and deficit in the 1990s was defense spending.

- The Active Duty military experienced years and years of reduced training, equipment on lots "awaiting parts," and borrowing ammo from other units to simply annually qualify with weapons. Then 9/11 happened. Uh-oh.

- After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the first thing that Democrats did was exploit the military and pretend to care about their lack of body armor and UpArmor for vehicles.

You know what wasn't hurt? Those fat-ass defense contracts that gave jobs to civilians across the nation to build systems like the F/A-22 that was never used in Iraq or Afghanistan because of its expense and impracticability. This was an F-22 system against Soviet Migs that was argued to be an air-to-ground weapon for the troop in the early 1990s and redesignated the F/A-22 just to keep the program alive after the Cold War ended. In the mean time, Army and Marine communicators in the field were stacking close-air support missions from available (but limited) tried-and-true aircraft and ground troops were buying body armor off the Internet between 2003 and at least 2011. There was simply not enough to go around for what the government wanted the troops to do. Oh, the F-22 or F/A-22, now the F-22 again? It was first used a couple years ago over Syria. But hey...pretty plane.

So cutting the Defense budget by "50%" would only hurt the actual military, not dent the fat cat profiteers and Senators who get elected for opening another Lockheed or Oshkosh factory in their state.
How exactly would those defense companies get paid if there were no money in the budget for them? Doesn't make sense.
 
I used to recall weapon systems in world war 2 did not cost as much to make as modern ones do.

I mean the cost of a p-51 mustang in today’s price values was around 500,000 dollars per fighter. Why can’t we make an f 16 as affordable as a p 51 mustang?
e probably COULD make a P-51 today for a half a mil and in today's air warfare environment it would probably last about a half a millisecond.
 
But why are so many of our weapon systems so bloody expensive?

Probably for the same reason an iPhone is over $600 while my basic cell phone cost me $50.
Both are doing what they were originally intended for: mobile phone.
 
$300 Billion per year is not enough to be prepared? Come on. Be real here.
Define "prepared". What exactly do you think we "need" to be prepared for today's global situation AND the future's? Russia and China have stepped up their military spending and are developing weapon systems military thinkers say are on a "near par" with our own. The last thing we want if we really want peace is to have to "fight fair". We need the threat of overpowering, awesomely destructive weaponry to deter potential enemies from screwing with us.
 
We could indeed cut the military by 50%. But only if we reduce the mission by 50%. That means closing half of our more than 800 bases around the world. And making the countries in each region pay more for their own defense.

I could understand big US military spending right after WWII when most countries weren't in a position to defend themselves. But that time has passed. Today they can afford it, at least to the extent we can afford it.

Today, land bases in general are often unnecessary. The investment that pays off the best is naval power. A carrier group can respond quicker, with more firepower, and reach anywhere in the world. Land bases just aren't needed like they used to be. Most land bases have to deal with local political pressures, are easy targets, and often just a local jobs program. There is nothing they can do, with few exceptions, that naval power can't do faster and better.

So, yes, cutting our military budget by 50% is do-able under the right conditions. And yes, That money could be better spend here. What I would favor, instead of a tax cut, is infrastructure improvement. And I would start with the electrical grid first. We lose almost half of our power production due to the antiquated grid put in place over 60-80 years ago (longer in some places). That spending would pay back in a very few years.
 
Actually I would start with removing our military from foreign lands, including Germany, Japan and South Korea, etc.

Yep that is good to. I say the carriers not only because they are expensive but because they are used to project power overseas. Lets stop doing that and defend the homeland only
 
Liberals would be the first to scream to high heaven if we were attacked by either Russia, China or some other nut case government and wonder why we weren't prepared.

Liberals would probably be the last to volunteer to service if we were attack. All the safe rooms would loaded to capacity and Canadian/US border would be overwhelmed.

Relax war hero
 
Our Military budget is $600 Billion. If we cut it in half, that would give each man woman and child in America roughly a $1000 in their pocket or $3000 to each tax payer depending on how you want to do your math.

IMO, we can easily protect our nation on $300B annually, probably could even do it for $100B if we tried. But, for now, lets just consider cutting it in half.

By 50%? No, that's overkill. However, the Pentagon needs to learn to do more with less. And building tanks just to bury them in a desert doesn't help, either.
 
Back
Top Bottom