Should military spending be reduced? - Page 2




 
--
 
May 19th, 2006  
Rabs
 
 
Quote:
I think it's unhealthy to constantly prepare for threats from countries we should be working with to resolve issues,
Yes, because negotiateing with Iran is going to go a long way...

We should always be aready for any threat from any nation. We have to spend more to keep ahead than others do to catch up.
May 19th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Warmachine, did you download the PDF and read it or just spout off from the hip? This is the actual legal document submitted to congress. It is THE primary document all other sources use to make their claims. Pull yer head in mate.
May 19th, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
4% of GDP equals $335 Billion a year, and that EXCLUDES the monies spend on Iraq and Afganistan, which are not calcuated in the Defense Budget. By the end of 2006 the Iraq fiasco will have cost $315 Billion Total (average $105 per year) with Afganistan another $61 Billion a year.

Thats over $500 Billion a year on Defense alone. Thats almost twice what Reagan spent. I dunno about you all, but I could think of a few better uses of that money.

As for cuts, yes I could list a whole bunch of things we could do without. The first and foremost is that white elephant of a Missile Shield which is strategically useless, doesn't work, and is draining the treasury dry. Lets face it, its whole exsistence is political/ecomomics not military. Other examples, the F/A-22A which is an amazing aircraft, but whose use is doubtful and is way too expensive at $187 Million a copy (plus the $12 Billion spend in RnD).
--
May 19th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
Wow, and you thought wikipedia was an unreliable source? At least i had others listed. The white house website makes whatever the white house does sound good, it's their friggin' site. Why not give me George Bush's blog while you're at it?
Even Wikipeda says you're wrong on your facts. You're misrepresenting what your own sources even say. Bulldogg has already pointed that out to you.

I clipped the rest of the post out because it was just more rhetoric.

Quote:
4% of GDP equals $335 Billion a year, and that EXCLUDES the monies spend on Iraq and Afganistan, which are not calcuated in the Defense Budget. By the end of 2006 the Iraq fiasco will have cost $315 Billion Total (average $105 per year) with Afganistan another $61 Billion a year.

Thats over $500 Billion a year on Defense alone. Thats almost twice what Reagan spent. I dunno about you all, but I could think of a few better uses of that money.
It's funny that you're trying to compare almost 20 years ago with today's spending. Equipment was cheaper. The dollar had more value and could get more. There's just no way to make a valid comparison.

It's also funny that you use Reagan as an example. His defense budget was huge for that time. Not only that, but he cut chunks out of discretionary spending to help fund the defense budget. Under Bush? There have been no cuts Reagan cut back on Agriculture, Labor, Veteran Affairs, Education, Student Loans, Housing etc.

During the Reagan years, defense spending was still above 4% of the GDP.

Seems like you all want to cut defense spending but you don't a) understand or even know the history of it b) understand how the military functions and what its needs are and b) care to really be informed about it at all.


May 19th, 2006  
WarMachine
 
 
The defense spending in constant 2003 dollars are about the same and maybe a little lower than the reagan era than it is today. That's still a lot of money going nowhere

About that whitehouse site, the rest of it was just supporting its war for peace or some nonsense, give me a non partial resource and then we'll talk.

a) Military spending levels are a result of ww2 and the subsequent cold war that maintained high levels of spending to this day. The soviets were always a good excuse to create the latest military weapons and we have all these leftover programs designed to handle their threat and they can't be of good use to us anymore. The B2s were meant to attack soviet targets, it's useless now and they cost an absolute fortune to maintain. Same with f-22s, missle defese, the osprey helicopter, ballistic missle subs, and a lot of other programs that we don't need stratgically or politically.

b)The military functions based on its activity levels and its capabilities. If it wasn't for that fake war in Iraq then we wouldn't have to pay for the logistical needs of 100,000s of soldiers that have been sent there. The cost of handling personnel is huge and that's why the budget has grown so quickly. Plus if military men themselves say they don't need fancy equipment but actually good reliable equipment, then i think we should listen to them

2b) I'm pretty informed about this but i'm not in denial. Which nation can possibly pose a threat to us realisticly? There is no more soviet union, get over it. Maintain resonable spending levels, i don't want to overflow with debt in the future because we just had to have 300 new jets.
May 19th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
I'll be sure to let my friends know its a fake war they're fighting... it should be a great relief to them.

I'm done with talking to you about this... see ya in a couple years when you don't know everything already.
May 19th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
If it wasn't for that fake war in Iraq then we wouldn't have to pay for the logistical needs of 100,000s of soldiers that have been sent there. The cost of handling personnel is huge and that's why the budget has grown so quickly. Plus if military men themselves say they don't need fancy equipment but actually good reliable equipment, then i think we should listen to them
Fake war, huh? Well, I'll make sure families of my dead brothers know it's all just been fake, that way they won't have to live their lives in sorrow anymore. I'll also go ahead and let my friends that have been seriously wounded know that their leg isn't really missing, it's all fake. And I know I am certainly relieved to know those weren't real bullets coming my way.

Don't pretend like you care what servicemembers say, it is obviously you care very little for what we have to say by your posts. "Fancy equpitment," yeah, those riles are pretty silly.



As for the rest of your post, I don't even need to bother because your comments concerning threats and strategy once again prove your ignorance and lack of understanding on the topic.

Your rhetoric isn't even good rhetoric.
May 19th, 2006  
Missileer
 
 
We win wars because we have the best equipped, best trained, best fed, and best paid soldiers in the world and we intend to keep them that way. That doesn't happen with cutbacks and if so where would you cut back and how much so as to not become one of the long list of defeated Nations?
May 19th, 2006  
WarMachine
 
 
Thank you for taking words out of context, i'm sure this is what it's all about. By 'fake' i meant the causes are fake and there were no weapons of mass destruction and now iraq is affiliated with al qaeda thanks to mr. zarqawi and the open door we call civil chaos. I don't like the idea of our soldiers being placed into harms way at all and if you think i feel nothing for them then you're just not listening. The unnecessary pain and suffering was caused by nonexistant pretexts and now volunteer soldiers are paying for it with their blood, that is not something to be proud of. The civilians are killing each other because our invasion was short sided and rumsfield is senile or something.

I'm not suggesting either that we reduce funds per soldier either, i'm saying we need fewer soldiers in the years to come once iraq has been stabilized. It's costing us a fortune because that's what's necessary to equip our forces as best as possible, but that can't be helped and i wouldn't want them to have less resources. So, all we need are fewer soldiers when this mid east mess is over and we'll be fine.

btw, I know rifles aren't fancy equipment unless they're made out of titanium alloy or something. I was referring to the useless patriot missles and such.
May 19th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
WarMachine, there are only four nations which pose a "realistic" threat to America: Russia, China, France and the UK. Those nations being the nations that have both nuclear weapons and a means to deliver them deep inside of America (although I am still in a toss up about China, I am sure they can hit Hawaii, but the West Coast? Maybe in a few years.). There is not a nation on Earth that can pose a threat to America using conventional means. The reason is simple, force projection, the United States has this ability, nobody else does. (Or at least not in sufficent means to actually attack America.) The US has what, 14 fleet carriers, that's 13 more than any other nation. Out of nine countries (Brazil, France, India, Italy, Russia, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) that currently possess aircraft carriers or amphibious assault vessels equipped with flight decks, only four (Brazil, USA, France and Russia) possess embarked aircraft of conventional type, while the other five operate STOL/VTOL aircraft only. There's a reason why we are spending $500 billion a year on defense, and it is not to waste money fighting false wars. How many years until China poses a true threat to American interests in the Far East? (Yes, I am referring to South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.) Sure there are some programs that could be cut back on, the F/A-22 was brought up already but for the wrong reasons, the problems isn't the Raptor, it's the JSF, the Air Force wants nothing to do with the JSF, they are drooling over their new toy (F/A-22) and would rather move the F-15 from an Air Supperiority role to a ground attack role (Meaning convert more F-15 A's and B's to F-15E's) so that while the F-22 may still cost more the end result may be cheaper because we won't have spent much on the JSF. Plus keep in mind that defense projects put a lot of food on the table for a lot of families and not just those who serve. Also keep in mind that the cost of living in America is higher than many nations, China can get more with less money simply because everything is cheaper there, they survive on $1,200 a year versus $26,000 a year in America.