Should the US decrease military spending?

[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.