Should military spending be reduced?

Status
Not open for further replies.
WarMachine

WarMachine

Active member
I'm currently researching this topic and i'm really concerned about the levels of spending on defense that the bush administration has developed over the years. Because we're rebuilding Iraq the cost will be over 430 billion total this year. That's half of the budget of the USA.

I for one would like to see a reduction in military spending down to roughly 200 billion which is more sustainable. All that's necessary is to stop spending money on new useless weapon systems and reduce the number of troops. Those two categories are inflating the cost and i'm tired of having to worry about civilian services always being cut to satisfy the Pentagon's appetite.

We'll still be a superpower and we'll still have the best military, so what's wrong with cutting defense spending a little bit?
 
It may happen if another Clintoonite takes the office of president and he may cut the spending and cripple the military just like he did back in 90s
 
WarMachine said:
I'm currently researching this topic and i'm really concerned about the levels of spending on defense that the bush administration has developed over the years. Because we're rebuilding Iraq the cost will be over 430 billion total this year. That's half of the budget of the USA.
Click to expand...

The Current defense budget is about 4% of the GDP. To date we've spent about $250Mil on Iraq if I remember correctly and we're expected to spend another $120 for both Iraq and Afghanistan this year.

I for one would like to see a reduction in military spending down to roughly 200 billion which is more sustainable. All that's necessary is to stop spending money on new useless weapon systems and reduce the number of troops. Those two categories are inflating the cost and i'm tired of having to worry about civilian services always being cut to satisfy the Pentagon's appetite.

We'll still be a superpower and we'll still have the best military, so what's wrong with cutting defense spending a little bit?
Click to expand...

Who is going to decide what is useless? Maybe we should just scrap R&D altogether! We'll keep what we have and carry it into the next century.

Cut troops, huh? Good idea, especially in the middle of a war with deployment rotations already reaching three and four.

Ignorant comments like this chap my butt sometimes. :bang:

The Defense budget is hurting civilian services, which ones?
 
Last edited:
4% is a lot with over 10 trillion dollars worth of GNP. That figure doesn't include the money left over that we run our country on which is something less than a triilion dollars. If nearly half of that is going to defense then i think there's a problem. You're cutting money to schools, health, and virtually every other field of the budget. And if you're not cutting the budget then you're borrowing heavily and inflating the national debt which has interest payments in the 100's of billions annually.

I hate to say it but the f 22 isn't necessary. They're expensive and have features designed to counter soviet planes that were in mind in development, but no longer pose a threat. So there is no one you can justify using these expensive jets against. Same with the B2 bomber, they cost over a billion each and we just keep producing more of them to attack nomads in the desert, not soviet targets like it was intended to.

When i said to reduce the troop deployment i meant in the future after Iraq has become more stabilized. It would be dangerous to do that now, but paying soldiers is a huge part of the defense spending so you have to lower their numbers.

The civilans are hurting because there isn't an extra 100 billion anymore to spend on the civil programs or pay off the debt, you know, improving our lives.

Just in case you don't know, we're spending as much on military now as we did during the cold war, that makes no sense. There's no competing super power and there's no one to use high tech weapons against. Though the robotics seems like a good field to invest in, the R&D itself isn't the prob.
 
WarMachine said:
4% is a lot with over 10 trillion dollars worth of GNP. That figure doesn't include the money left over that we run our country on which is something less than a triilion dollars. If nearly half of that is going to defense then i think there's a problem. You're cutting money to schools, health, and virtually every other field of the budget. And if you're not cutting the budget then you're borrowing heavily and inflating the national debt which has interest payments in the 100's of billions annually.
Click to expand...

Half of the US budget is NOT going to defense. 4% of 100% is not half. I don't care where you went to school.

When i said to reduce the troop deployment i meant in the future after Iraq has become more stabilized. It would be dangerous to do that now, but paying soldiers is a huge part of the defense spending so you have to lower their numbers.
Click to expand...

And when the next war breaks out and we find ourselves with our d*cks in our hands and no trained military, what then? Yeah, great idea! All of those doctrines about being prepared are just silly and should be completely ignored.

It's obvious you want an ill prepared and ineffective military.

The civilans are hurting because there isn't an extra 100 billion anymore to spend on the civil programs or pay off the debt, you know, improving our lives.
Click to expand...

Again, what programs are suffering. Specifics, please. What civilians, specifically are suffering?

Just in case you don't know, we're spending as much on military now as we did during the cold war, that makes no sense. There's no competing super power and there's no one to use high tech weapons against. Though the robotics seems like a good field to invest in, the R&D itself isn't the prob.
Click to expand...

I know, but you obviously don't. We're not spending half as much as we did during the cold war. Our defense budget was on average 7.5% of the GDP during the Cold War.

You seem to have researched this topic very poorly. Not only are your facts wrong, but you show no understand of how the military actually functions, what its needs are, etc.



 
*shakes head side to side*
Warmachine, warmachine, warmachine... what are we going to do with you? Huh??

This is the problem with using the media and the water cooler as your source of truth and light. :)

George Washington, Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Rommel, Patton just to start off would all back the argument that the only path to peace is through preparing for war. Without having possession of a stick your enemy fears you cannot eat the carrot in peace. I'd daresay those five blokes are more intelligent and well-versed on the subject at hand despite the passage of time as truths such as these are universal regardless of when or where.

You also fail to grasp the impact the military and all its ancillary support on the economy at large. IT drives the core of the USA's industrial base that has not been outsourced and downsized and retrofitted and fubar'd. Get rid of it and we are in the same boat as England post Thatcher. Not good.

I'll go so far as to say its not possible you researched this in the slightest before firing your opening salvo, much like your ideas would do to my brothers-in-arms.
 
Riddle me this confucius, just who is our enemy that we're spending all this money on suddenly?

Iraq? Don't b******t me.

Iran? See above

N. Korea? ditto

None of those countries pose a realistic threat to us. Their defense spending is negligible compared to ours and they're a threat(Iraq before invasion)? To spend this much on military without an actual enemy is ridiculous.

I realize that asking this question on a military forum would give me these sort of cynical responses, but hey, it's the only forum i got.

In case you don't believe me about some of the facts, see here: http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/budget_analysis.htm
or
http://borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Btw, the gdp is not our budget like i tried to explain before. The budget is the money leftover that we can actually use. The gdp is all our money before subtracting what we owe. Plus, i did research this, that's why i posted the question here in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia, ok, does that mean I can quote my drunk uncle too? :roll:

Your first source is misrepresenting the "Federal Discretionary Spending" as the entire federal budget. The budget includes discretionary spending as well as mandated spending. When you analyse the facts correctly 19% is on military and domestic security, 18% discretionary non-military, 9% debt interest, Medicaid 7%, Medicaire 14%, Social Security 21% and other mandated spending totals another 12%.

Don't listen to what someone else thinks it means mate, read it yourself and engage your grey matter. Don't believe me even, here it is...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/

We must prepare for all enemies, foreign and domestic, known and unknown. Failure to pursue these ends is criminal. Iraq, Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Quebec... you must plan and prepare for all possible threats, then and only then can your society rest easy and unfortunately it is a race without end.
 
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?

I think it's unhealthy to constantly prepare for threats from countries we should be working with to resolve issues, not intimidate them and make them distrust us. Thanks to the propaganda the Bush administration has launched at the american public, we have to believe we're going to be attacked sometime somewhere from enemies thousands of miles away.

People here seem to think i'm of the opinion that i want to do away with the american military. That's nonsense, i just want to see spending being more responsible on programs we can actually use. I like the idea that we're a superpower, but we were a superpower when we were spending 250 billion or, it's what you do with it that counts. 430 billion spent on military costs does add up and unless free money magicly appears, somebody is paying this bill sooner or later. Guess What? It's the american public scared to death of developing countries.
 
I think it's unhealthy to constantly prepare for threats from countries we should be working with to resolve issues,
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
WarMachine said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
WarMachine said:
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
Click to expand...

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. :roll:



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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top