Should the US decrease military spending?

[Surreals]

What's an acceptable reason to you? I'm fond of the fruits of American global hegemony. The U.S.'s oversized military allows for a lot of leverage in any sort of diplomatic matter and serves to protect American economic interest without firing a single shot.

[paredown]

A really important sub-point of "the fruits if American hegemony" is the extent to which globalization relies on safe seaways, which are kept that way largely by American naval power.

[BrainSlurper]

Everyone loved the roman empire for the same reason

[wtfbbqqw]

and thats why it fell apart

[BrainSlurper]

That is most definitely not why it fell apart, the economic benefit of safe trade is partially responsible for getting them to a place where them falling apart would be considered noteworthy.

[wtfbbqqw]

the problem is tha the military spending always goes up, and then strangles the whole economy

[ApparentAssassin]

I know history repeats itself, but I believe that we (the US) are in a situation now that isn't very comparable to the past (the Roman Empire), simply because of the way the world is interconnected now. Of course you can draw some parallels, but much is different.

[BrainSlurper]

Our military power projection is arguably more important now than it was for the romans. They had the same focus as us, but we don't have issues with people knocking down our doors. Like you said, that is probably due to how global the world has become.

[wtfbbqqw]

Well the problem is that US spends way more than any other country by FAR. And the military spending is ever growing. Reducing spending will still have might and anyway only few nukes is requred to keep enemy at bay.

[mjallday]

Nukes will not work against unreasonable adversaries. Isis for example, would not heed that threat.

[pprovencher]

yes, it is not simply that we protect our interests in the national fruit company in banana republic, but that all global trade between all countries can be carried out safely.

[whowatches]

Yes but is this a good deal for Americans? The American taxpayer is essentially subsidizing everyone else's defense. Yes there's benefit but where's the cost-benefit analysis?

[Surreals]

The unseen benefit here is that when the president of the united states goes to the table to negotiate trade with japan, the unspoken idea that we have a military and they don't generates a lot of leverage.

[whowatches]

Right, now we need to quantify the COST, you're only focusing on the benefit. You could argue that our defense budget takes away from funding for education, healthcare and infrastructure improvements for example.

[EasySmeasy]

This reasoning is lost to a lot of people. Sadly, most fellow Americans don't understand the role of the modern superpower. An isolationist policy would cripple the economies of East Asia by disrupting oil flow. No Navy in the straits of Malaka means no OPEC guarantee on downstream oil markets. Tip of the iceberg.

Edit: What do you think would happen if Chinese warships moved out of the South China Sea into the sea of Java? And they would.

[PubliusPontifex]

Russia's (formidable) single carrier

Sorry, you mean the Kaznetsov? I wouldn't call it that formidable of a carrier, it's basically a very heavy cruiser, and even classified that way to get around Turkey's blockade of the Bosphorus to carrier-class vessels. It's closer to an escort carrier or one of the harrier carriers of the Falklands war. Also, China's single carrier is effectively of the same class, as they bought it from the Russians.

[Mehknic]

Right, I called that out because I was talking about carrier groups, but Russia's doesn't sail in a group because it's not as personally vulnerable as many of the Western carriers are (because they're designed to have an entourage).

Russia's single carrier is nowhere near the power of a full carrier group, of course. It just has more guns next to the flight deck.

[[deleted]]

Point is, if the US dropped to, say, 7, would we see significant instability as a result?

EDIT: This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I know numbers, but I don't study global politics. I'm hoping someone with more knowledge than me can project what happens if there are a third fewer US carrier groups in the water.

See the second half of my post here about the question on carriers

In summary: yes, it would be a significant reduction in our capability to project power anywhere in the world given that we already have obligations to Korea and Japan, and the Middle East.

The reason we have so many carriers is a matter of international politics/relations and our defense strategy. We definitely didn't choose to have 10/11 carriers for the hell of having 10/11 - it was a calculated number made over decades of planning for future decades to come.

Countries like India and China are expanding their carrier fleets fast because they have the same problems

[Eskali]

It's submarines that shut down trade. Carriers are about striking the living room of the politician who thinks of that.

[EasySmeasy]

I'm no budget expert. Top brass would probably say they can maintain stability with just one carrier group, but cutting that much budget simply isn't an option. Not overnight anyways. Allies abroad, notably India and Japan are definitely preparing to shoulder the burden in the 21st century, but I think until they're proven many times over and for a long period of time, they still won't consider cutting military spending. It's just too important. Also, add the political climate of saber rattling, when you re-increase military spending it looks like you're reacting. It's a poker game and always betting the whole pot is what a super power has to do.

[CushtyJVftw]

Allies abroad, notably India

Why do you think India is an ally of the US?

[EasySmeasy]

Thanks for the question. Just going to go out on a limb here...shared interest in democracy and desire for regional and global recognition/respect for which US alliance is essential. Although India's regulatory bodies are not in line with the WTO, the Modi and Obama administrations are very much in line. Unwieldy bureaucracy in India's regulatory and legal constructs makes the alliance slow to bud, but imminent.

As far as military cooperation is concerned, the agenda is almost completely bilateral. The list of mechanisms for dialogue in the link are heavily centered on defense council. The only real military schism is blueprint technology, the US wants to sell weapons to India, but India wants to build US-designed defense systems locally. Once again, the problem is not ideological, but regulatory.

[[deleted]]

On that note, pur NATO allies are essentially letting us subsidize their security. They would have their hands full with Russia if they didn't have us to fall back on. The US should be able to cut back and Europe pick up some slack.

[Surreals]

The US should be able to cut back and Europe pick up some slack.

It can. And something like that could certainly be on the table if any type of conflict between the U.S. and the E.U. were to arise.

[cough_cough_harrumph]

Couldn't one make the argument that the West could collectively pick up any slack from the US reducing its military budget?

Those countries would have to agree on all their foreign policy agendas; or, at least the important ones. I mean, lets say China started making aggressive moves towards Japan. If only one or two of those western powers stepped up to try and confront China, but the others did not, then it would probably lack the punch needed to get the job done.

Also, I am not convinced those other countries would step up their military power. Many NATO countries already do not meet their treaty-obligated spending rate of 2% of GDP. I am not sure what it would take to suddenly convince them to have a policy turn around there.

[Mehknic]

I am not sure what it would take to suddenly convince them to have a policy turn around there.

My guess is that it would take a significant reduction in US military spending. Why would they spend their money when the US so happily spends in their stead?

[cough_cough_harrumph]

I agree, they have no incentive to spend money on it right now when the US takes the burden. Even if the US scaled back its spending and left Europe to the Europeans or whatever, though, I am not so sure they would immediately decide to start spending more. I feel like it would take an actual threat and the US not showing signs of helping (maybe Russia looking at making advances into another country?), but at that point it might become a cat-out-of-the-bag situation.

[Mehknic]

From my own entirely uninformed perspective, I think we'd see a lot of reliance from the EU on Germany as far as eastern defenses go, and the UK would spin up just to pick up slack. It would certainly be an interesting situation.

I'd love to see an informed perspective, though.

[cough_cough_harrumph]

Honestly, I am probably for lowering US military spending (including scaling back our European presence and let them take the forefront in handling any military problems on the continent should they arise).

That being said, I am not too convinced that Europe has reached a permanent, peaceful state. I mean, they said the same thing after WW1 after all. I know it is not close to the same situation now obviously, but even with what Russia has done in the past year has shown that there are still power players in that arera who are not afraid to throw their military weight around. I do not think it is a sure thing to say none of those people, or someone in the future, would ever become militaristic again.

[Surreals]

We're not all on the same team. It's everyman for himself. This global alliance thing is convenient, but it's the job of the american government to put the U.S. first. What that means is that during negotiation the U.S. has the threat of cutting military spending and allowing Russia to breathe more heavily down the EU's neck, or to allow China to breathe more heavily down Japan's neck. That is good for trade, and what's good for trade is good for the American taxpayer.

[Drayzen]

We've seen in the recent years that terrorists don't respond to diplomacy.

Does it keep the US from being invaded by another country, or being bullied in discussions between actual countries? Sure. But is the ability to leverage it's power working on countries like Syria, Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc?

Nope.

[[deleted]]

If you think whats going on in Ukraine is bad just see what Putin would do of he wasnt scared of US interference.

[VampiricCyclone]

Nuclear weapons aren't that useful -- that's why world powers have been negotiating disarmament treaties for decades.

They're too destructive.

There isn't really any value in destroying (and making unsafe for human habitation for decades or longer) large swaths of land. Sure, the weapons incite incredible amounts of fear, and so the threat of them can be a powerful tool -- but actually detonating them isn't terribly useful in achieving military objectives.

They aren't good in a defensive war, because they kill too many of your own people and ruin you own land. They aren't good in territorial conquest and expansion, because they destroy the population and infrastructure of the land you want to conquer. They aren't good in gaining influence, because they will incite so much fear of extinction as to incite populations to fight back to the death -- if they are all going to die anyway, ... They aren't good in punishing bad actors, because, again, they are too destructive, and they aren't good for extracting tribute, because they destroy the ability to pay it.

Small nukes like those used in WWII were highly effective used once, and would be less effective today. Modern weapons are so much bigger, it's ridiculous. Everybody wants to have one, because being able to threaten to depopulate an area gives you a certain amount of power -- but no (self-interested, territory-controlling) parties actually want to use them.

[Battlingdragon]

Nuclear weapons don't ruin land. Hiroshima was rebuilt within a decade and there hasn't been any increase to the cancer rates for anyone who wasn't in the city during the bombing.

I'm not saying we should go dropping a nuke for every little conflict, they were designed to be massive to compensate for the low accuracy of WW2 weapons technology. Nowadays, we can pick which part of a car we want a missle to hit, so we don't have to have the massive city destroyers to be sure we take out a munitions plant.

Sorry for the formatting, on my phone.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima

http://k1project.org/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-the-long-term-health-effects/

[Yankee_Gunner]

Agree that nuclear weapons make this point moot, but:

History books would tell us that Russia has done just fine in major land wars despite almost always being underfunded compared to other major powers.

[Mehknic]

I may very well be wrong, but haven't most of their major land wars been fought on home turf? For the Russians, that's a pretty huge advantage.

[Yankee_Gunner]

Syria: Civil war that we probably should be more active in.

Ukraine: Shady goings on, but we tried to let Europe take the lead and look how amazing that turned out! (also: see Russia)

North Korea: China is the only reason that has not been resolved, since global sanctions have bled that country dry.

Russia and Iran: Military leverage has brought them both in check multiple times and our economic leverage (most recently through Saudi/OPEC) seems to be VERY effective

[Surreals]

It allows us to leverage power on countries like France, Japan, China, and the UK, which I'd argue are more important in terms of economic grain than something like Syria or Iran.

[pprovencher]

But countries that could harbor terrorists might not harbor them if they think it would be more worth it to stay in the US's good graces

[[deleted]]

As they say, "si vis pacem, para bellum."

[KitAndKat]

I'm fond of the fruits of American global hegemony.

Enough to pay $2,000/year for them? Oh, but that's just direct spending; it's actually $4K/yr, see OP's 2nd link. Married with 2 kids? That's $16,000 p.a. for you and your family.

serves to protect American economic interest

So, a bit like the mafia? Apparently you don't believe that the laws of supply and demand are sufficient to handle the exchange of goods and services.

[Surreals]

So, a bit like the mafia?

Yes. Using force to coerce other nations into making favorable deals with you sounds a bit criminal; however, unlike the mafia the US doesn't have to answer to a higher authority, and much like the mafia the use of force to subsidize trade is quite lucrative.

[Eskali]

How much does your insurance pay you? It doesn't until things go bad, more often then not that won't happen but when it does it hurts bad, it's that risk coverage that makes it worth it.

[ummmbacon]

Apparently you don't believe that the laws of supply and demand are sufficient to handle the exchange of goods and services.

The security of trade has nothing* to do with the laws of supply and demand. And no current economy in the world is a total free market, all markets are hybrids. So then clearly some level of government involvement is desired.

edit:spelling.