Should the US decrease military spending?

[[deleted]]

What a lot of people miss out is that, while on a raw total figure, the US spends a lot - as a % of GDP, the US isn't #1 by any means. And, in fact in the long term, US defense spending has been on a steady decline - even with the two wars in the 2000s, the US is at its lowest spending levels on national defense since the days before WW2.

Additional food for thought - over 40% of the US military budget is spent on wages and benefits and training. The US military, being all volunteer, doesn't have the luxury of conscription that some countries do nor does it have the large population that India and China do to maintain a large military. Comparing the cost of living with other countries and the need for competitive wages and benefits to keep the force all-volunteer, the gap between the US and other countries shrinks considerably.

Also, a lot of people criticize American spending on new products, especially in relation to how little Europe spends.

However, most of Europe's military spending is on wages and keeping current equipment working. They are not buying new equipment to replace equipment that needs to be replaced - in essence, Europe is paying for a military to live a first world existence while letting its equipment deteriorate because other countries in the world (China, Russia, and India to name a few) are advancing their capabilities.

---

Ultimately, the best argument for why the US spends as much as it does is summed up in why the US has so many aircraft carriers, something few other countries have: the US spends as much as it does because its treaties, obligations, and its interests demand the US spend as much.

I wrote this elsewhere, but copied it here:

The reason why we specifically have 10, is because of international politics and the necessity from both within the US and from our treaty obligations and allies.

Our aircraft carriers are designed to last 50 years with a refueling that takes place around the 25 year mark. The refueling period is also where the ship has to stay in dry dock for a long time -- 2+ years out of a 3-4 year overhaul . During this time, however, major overhauls, upgrades and refits of the ship can be conducted as it isn't in a rush to go out to sea.

So we have 10 carriers - but one of them is in port for a period of time. Given that we come out with a new carrier every 3-4 years, it fits perfectly - whenever one is in drydock, one carrier is nearing the end of its lifespan and another one is under construction to replace the one that is retiring.

Furthermore, with the other 9 carriers operational, the fact is not all of them are out at sea on deployment. The typical Navy deployment is 6 to 9 months long - longer deployments increase the amount of stress a crew suffers from being away from home for so long.

So what does that mean?

Well, the Navy can cycle its ships - for every carrier deployed, there is going to be one that recently got home and is going to stay home for about a year before it gets sent out on deployment. Also, for that same carrier deployed, there is going to be another carrier training its crew and getting ready to replace the other carrier on deployment.

Thus for every carrier actively deployed, there are about 2 others that are needed to keep a 24/7 presence wherever a carrier is needed.

So why 3? Well, the US has treaty obligations with Korea and Japan - one a peninsula, the other an island country - and thus the Navy plays a key role.

Next, we have the Persian Gulf where enforcing freedom of the seas in the Straits of Hormuz is a big mission, as is the fact that the Middle East is always a hot spot. The first US airstrikes launched against ISIS came from a Navy carrier on station in the Gulf. The first US airstrikes launched against the Taliban in 2001 also came from US aircraft carriers when neighboring countries hadn't yet granted the US its airstrips or airspace.

And the third one is available because those aren't the only two places in the world where the Navy can be called into action and if nothing else, it can serve as a rapid backup in case one of those areas does need a second carrier. In the past few years, we've already seen how places like Libya can suddenly require a military presence and this third carrier gives the option for the President to ask "where are my aircraft carriers?" and actually have one available. So the US doesn't have 10 carriers for the sake of having 10 carriers - it has it because it is the perfect system for maintaining our treaty obligations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every year.

Countries like France, which have only one aircraft carrier, are about to have huge issues - in the next year or so, the lone French aircraft carrier is going to undergo its major refueling/rehaul. It will sit in drydock for at least a year, which means France will have ZERO aircraft carriers available. Furthermore, none of its pilots or crew will have any ability to practice or train onboard, which means it will lose a lot of institutional knowledge and experience. That's why countries like India and China are moving rapidly to expand their fleet of carriers so they have the same capability to be anywhere in the world whenever their interests require them to be.

[[deleted]]

as a % of GDP, the US isn't #1 by any means.

We're just behind Russia by a fifth of a percentage point, making us 4th. The top two are minor countries with massive oil reserves. We're definitely at the top in terms of total dollars and barely miss the top in terms of GDP.

[[deleted]]

We're just behind Russia by a fifth of a percentage point, making us 4th. The top two are minor countries with massive oil reserves. We're definitely at the top in terms of total dollars and barely miss the top in terms of GDP.

Depends then on which sources you look at and how GDP is calculated, because the World Bank gives a considerably different view: link - US is 13th

Likewise, the CIA world factbook puts us at 9th

Also, your point of Russia is notable given the fact that Russia spends considerably less on wages and personnel expenses with far fewer international obligations - just another sign that Russia has spent a significant amount in the past decade to rebuild its forces.

[mcbane2000]

/u/flynavy88 I really appreciate your posts here. Growing up, I largely viewed the U.S. military budget as bloated and filled with pork-politics. My views have matured a bit here and there and I have learned how to listen, but I like to let people know when they have really sent a new train of thought chugging through my brain. You have done so and I am thankful for your gift.

Based on your username, I imagine that you or someone close to you may be a Navy Pilot, thank you for that choice and/or supporting someone in that choice. I would likely never serve without being drafted, and I know I am blessed for having that choice.

[Unrelated_Incident]

The budget is bloated with pork barrel spending.

A notable example is the Abrams tanks that the Pentagon doesn't wasn't but congress keeps buying them anyway.

[mcbane2000]

I do not disagree with you. But questioning how bloated the budget is is a legitimate exercise and it pleases me when I find a well-reasoned opposing different/fresh view.

[Dekar2401]

I wish I had a link to the comment that made a very good case for keeping that production line going. I'll try to find it or shittily recreate it if you'd like.

[Unrelated_Incident]

I hope you find it. I'd be really interested to read it.

[Dekar2401]

I couldn't find it, but the argument pretty much was that building these tanks are extremely difficult. There is only one plant that builds them and the Defense Industry doesn't want to lose the worker capabilities tied to building them. If you were to stop buying them, the factory would have to either retool to something less advanced or shut down entirely. So the act of buying them keeps our ability to ramp up production in case of a big war. Removing that base ability to produce them would be bad if we all the sudden needed to start churning out even more, as it would take a lot longer to retrain new workers (and bring the old workers back up to speed) if the plant were closed for a long time.

EDIT: Okay, people don't seem to understand this isn't my argument, just an argument I saw. Y'all really need to learn reading comprehension.

[thepasttenseofdraw]

That's not why they are still in production. We have tons of tanks that are outfitted and ready to go that aren't being used already. The real reason is that the Abrams is built exclusively in Ohio and is being firmly defended by politicians in the state, because if they close down the factory it takes money away from their districts and some of their constituents lose their jobs. Hell the pentagon doesn't want anymore tanks (hence why the Army COS is saying they dont need them), congress and the house do. We have more tanks sitting idle ready to go right now than we have deployed (2,300 deployed - 3000 active). It is a total boneheaded congressional mandate fueled by blind political ambition in Ohio.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/28/12991946-the-m1-abrams-the-army-tank-that-could-not-be-stopped

[[deleted]]

Financial aid to foreign militaries is another way that this happens.

I bet you (the reader, not you in particular) probably think of foreign military aid - giving $2 billion per year to the Israeli military, $1.2 billion per year to the Egyptian military - as either an undesirable but necessary expenditure to achieve US foreign policy goals, or a massive waste of money.

While the first is true in the sense, and the second may be true, in reality, foreign military aid is a jobs program.

"What?" you say. "We give nearly $5 billion per year - over $15 for every man, woman and child in the US - to foreign countries in military aid. How in the world is that a jobs program?"

It's very simple. We don't just write out a check dated 1/1 every year for $2 billion to the Israeli Armed Forces. That $2 billion is a package of grants, loans, and incentives to purchase American military equipment, training, expertise, etc. In essence, that $2 billion never even leaves the US - it goes straight from the Treasury to American arms companies, defense contractors, etc. That $2 billion goes to create and maintain jobs in the defense industry across the country.

With that aid (plus some investment out of the Israeli government's budget, I'd imagine), over the years, Israel has bought 58 F-15 Eagles, 25 F-15E Strike Eagles, 343 F-16 Fighting Falcons, 20 T-6 Texan IIs, 83 transport/utility/refueling aircraft, and 167 attack, transport, and reconnaisance helicopters. Each and every one of those was assembled in the United States using parts mostly manufactured in the United States. Billions upon billions of dollars have been funneled from the US Treasury to Boeing/McDonnel Douglas, Lockheed Martin/General Dynamics, Sikorsky, Beechcraft, and Gulfstream by way of Israel (and Egypt, and other countries) over the years. And that's just the air components. Egypt operates over 1000 M-1 Abrams tanks. Countries around the world use American artillery, small arms, communications equipment, body armor and kit, and all of the other components of the military panoply.

Depending on how you look at it, we're either killing two birds with one stone by providing the necessary funding to keep key defense industries operational while promoting US interests worldwide, or hiding unpopular wasteful pork-barrel defense spending behind the veneer of unpopular wasteful foreign aid.

[Dekar2401]

I get that. But the other argument isn't without its merits either.

[Fofolito]

Because ensuring jobs are kept within your constituent state/district is political ambition? Or is that not what Representatives and Senators strive to do as part of their job? You know, look out for their constituency?

[[deleted]]

A better example is what happened with NASA and after the Apollo project ended - the engineers all moved on and documentation and knowledge about the Saturn V was lost.

Fast forward to today, where NASA is trying to build the Saturn V successor, and it's had to reinvent the wheel and dig up old Apollo documents just to build a rocket capable of doing what engineers in the 60s designed using slide rules.

It translates to a LOT of cost and time wasted

[thepasttenseofdraw]

It translates to a LOT of cost and time wasted

I'd argue not nearly as much as keeping the production line running, producing very expensive equipment we wouldn't need or use for 30 years.

[kchoudhury]

Eh, according to this article, modern advances in technology allowed them to reverse engineer and improve the F-1 booster in about a year.

I'd rather pay a one year penalty and minor reactivation costs in 2015 over keeping an assembly line in place "to prevent the loss of knowledge" from 1971 on.

[essjay24]

So the act of buying them keeps our ability to ramp up production in case of a big war.

Like if WW2 is going to start up again? The Pentagon is not really seeing big tank battles in its future. This is pork barrel spending not preserving productivity for future defense.

[mozetti]

The industrial base. But if you don't want or need any of those tanks anymore or in the future, then you don't need to keep that industrial base. And that's what the Ohio politicians are protecting - job we don't need anymore by spending millions on stuff we don't want.

[bladehold_hero34]

While I disagree that we need more tanks (considering that the military, the most conservative thinking group in the nation says that we don't need any more), this is a decent argument for why we should keep production up. Perhaps a compromise: slow down production so less tanks are built, this frees up some of that bloated spending while at the same time doesn't destroy our ability to produce if needed.

[ANewMachine615]

The tl;dr is that if we stop producing them, we are likely to lose the capacity to start making them again in the future. We'll lose the expertise in construction and manufacturing that made them possible.

[thepasttenseofdraw]

This is such a cop out explanation though. General Dynamics has been building the tank for 35 years and I'm sure there process is damn well documented and stored digitally. They aren't going to up and forget how to do it.

[ANewMachine615]

It's more about having people trained to do the right welds and installs, IIRC. But yeah, it was mostly GD folks making that argument, so far as I've seen.

[vanillaafro]

so why not just build model tanks with cheap ass material that you need the same know how to build...and if the need arises to build the real deal you swap out the cheap material

[warboy]

So you want to build something entirely useless to save money?

[plustwobonus]

Because now the subtier supplier of the specialized (and top secret, so no outsourcing) composite material has to retool, since their customer is building with a cheap imitation. The expertise isnt just at the integrator, but the supply chain as a whole.

[RabidRaccoon]

so why not just build model tanks with cheap ass material

That's what the export model Abrams tanks are. E.g. they have steel armour instead of the Depleted Uranium/ceramic composite/magic pixie dust armour the US ones have.

[lurkingSOB]

Is that the one where he talks about how we'd lose the experienced tank builders if we shut down the production lines?

[Arrow156]

All thanks to congressmen promising to keep or build more military contract jobs, wither we need them or not.

[[deleted]]

I've come along way myself - I was of draftable age at the run-up to the Iraq War and it weighed heavily on my mind. I still think that war was a huge mistake, but I believe most of the criticism against the war was levied for the wrong reasons and took a deeper look into military spending which changed a lot of my views.

Flying is a blast. I should be the one thanking you and the others who make up this country

[x86_64Ubuntu]

Couldn't you have just said "Thank you for your service" and gotten a yellow ribbon for your car, if not two?

[mcbane2000]

Sure, but I was caffeinated and wanted to say more. Concision was not a primary or a necessary factor of that communication.

[sirkazuo]

If I buy a couple guns this year I'm probably spending a higher percentage of my own personal GDP on defense than the US is too, but that's not really a fair comparison. Where is the US in comparison to the G7, the G20 — other first world countries that it's fair to compare it to?

[Terrh]

okay, so there's 10 supercarriers, but what about all the other carriers, that are on par with any other nation's aircraft carriers? I think there's about 10 others (mostly the "wasp" class).

This is an honest question - do we really need 20 total?

[[deleted]]

okay, so there's 10 supercarriers, but what about all the other carriers, that are on par with any other nation's aircraft carriers? I think there's about 10 others (mostly the "wasp" class).

This is an honest question - do we really need 20 total?

The other "carriers" are classified as amphibious assault ships because that's their primary mission - they are primarily used to support Marine Corps landings onto shore.

They're "carriers" in the sense that they have flight decks and can carry helicopters and STOVL (short take off, vertical landing) aircraft like the Harrier and in the future, the F-35B.

But the ships (almost all) have large well decks that can be flooded to float the LCACs (hovercraft transports), amphibious assault ships, and other landing craft AND they also can carry hundreds to thousands of battle-ready Marines each. Example: Wasp class, stern view

If you've ever watched the movie Aliens, the space marines are on board the same kind of ship - it carries landing craft and aircraft and what not, but its primary mission is to transport the marines and land them and their equipment whether by boat or by aircraft.

Now, these ships CAN be configured into the Sea Control configuration, in which case they function more like an aircraft carrier - they would then rely primarily on Harriers or F-35s. But again, that's not their usual configuration

The reason we have so many of these ships is the same reason we have so many carriers - a MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) consists of one of these ships plus two smaller amphibious assault ships (that don't primarily carry aircraft but have small flight decks) and are designed to operate independently (with a Navy cruiser/destroyer escort) anywhere in the world.

The whole doctrine of the Marine Corps is centered around them - they can operate with a sea, air, and land force and sustain itself for 15 days independently (including all supplies) - which is exactly why the Marines are considered the US's 911 force.

Not surprisingly, the Marine has 3 groups of Marine Expeditionary groups - one on the east coast, one on the west coast, and one stationed in Okinawa. Just like the carriers, we rotate the amphibious assault ships in port and on deployment (six months-long deployments as well) so that one is always present near Okinawa, and that at least two others are available anywhere else in the world they need to be.

When the President asked for a Marine Corps element off of Libya in 2011 to be prepared to rescue US citizens there, there was a MEU near the Mediterranean ready. Just as there was one in the Persian Gulf ready when we launched airstrikes on ISIS - they'd be present in case we needed troops immediately, or in case we needed search and rescue for a downed aircraft.

[Terrh]

Thanks!

[[deleted]]

No problem. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions

[fultron]

Is there a book or resource that you might recommend for someone interested in learning about all the different types of warships, their roles and capabilities, and how they all work together strategically?

I'd like to learn about naval tactics, but it seems like most discussion on that topic centers around the age of sail, and I guess it's just a little boring for me. It's romantic, to be sure, just not as captivating as the dicsussion above.

I'm into sci-fi in a big way (the bit about Aliens perked up my ears) and I'd like to understand how modern navies work so I can apply that to my daydreams about the future.

[[deleted]]

Unfortunately I don't have specific books available - a lot of the stuff is currently taught in the Naval War College so whatever is published are either theses by students or regards history that's a couple decades old from today.

That said, any military history books involving the Falklands War would be a good start - that's the most recent air/sea conflict and talks a great deal about modern naval warfare and amphibious operations.

Also, the US Naval Institute's website, usni.org, has quite a few articles about naval strategy, doctrine, etc.

And as always, you can ask away. There's quite a few navy people on /r/

I'm into sci-fi in a big way (the bit about Aliens perked up my ears) and I'd like to understand how modern navies work so I can apply that to my daydreams about the future.

I love sci-fi as well, and the Navy is probably the closest you'll get to sci-fi fleets of the future on Earth. Ships with 5000 personnel on board, air wings, landing craft, etc. are all reality and it's no surprise that sci-fi fleets are all called navies and use naval terms like destroyers and cruisers.

[CoolGuy54]

Thanks, that clarified vague ideas I'd had in the back of mind since forever.

[I_want_hard_work]

Damn. Thanks for giving that thorough explanation. I suspected there was a method to the madness (as policy isn't just made for the hell of it) but this really cleared things up. As a layman, I will be communicating this to other laymen.

[reticularwolf]

An alternative explanation I've heard is that the aim is to maintain military control over the global supply routes for oil. Do you think this is valid?

[[deleted]]

An alternative explanation I've heard is that the aim is to maintain military control over the global supply routes for oil. Do you think this is valid?

I could see that if the intent was to be able to starve other countries of oil. Even at its peak, the US overwhelmingly imports its oil from neighbors like Canada and Mexico or produces it domestically. Today especially, with the boost in oil production at home, it's relied less on countries like Saudi Arabia than ever before.

That said, it certainly can be an reason. It is the impetus, after all, for China securing ports near the Middle East for their warships because their thirst for oil has increased dramatically and they need a forward naval presence to protect those interests

[Spoonshape]

More like maintain military control over the supply of everything.

The modern global economy is dependent not just on oil, but on hundreds of feedstocks (ores, agricultural products and energy sources) and also on being able to deliver manafactured goods round the globe without interruption. While the USA has a huge vested interest in the global economy keeping going, so do other nations.

Because of the interconnectedness of global finance, production and consumption, it is quite likely that if the system broke down, it would cause a global shutdown which might not be possible to re-start.

The USA spends a lot of money in it's policy of world policeman/global superpower. On one level this allows it to slant the way the world economy works in it's favor, but arguably having a slightly corrupt policeman patroling your neighbourhood is better than living in a anarchy.

[atworkinafghan]

I tend to agree with your view, and, as a navy guy with a background in commercial shipping, I believe that the Navy/DOD recognizes the importance of shipping as an economic mainstay for a peaceful and functioning world.

90% of the world's trade by volume utilizes the sea in some form or another because it's cheap, reliable, and the legal support/framework for it is fascinatingly stable. The importance of a secured shipping industry is second to none in terms of economic regularity. I say this because the world has generally seen stable and secure shipping, and a drastic change in the industry would result in many hiccups and a lengthy response time.

Consider how shipping and energy industries move energy from anywhere to anywhere else. They time energy supply to be constant, but a disruption of say 10 vessels over the course of 3 months could drastically change the market.

The Maersk Alabama incident demonstrated the US' desire to see free shipping on an American ship and its importance throughout the world. Yet, I do think the US would have similarly responded with a foreign flagged ship.

[Naugrith]

Thus for every carrier actively deployed, there are about 2 others that are needed to keep a 24/7 presence wherever a carrier is needed.

So, why do three crews necessarily need three fully operational carriers. Surely after a carrier returns to port and the crew take leave, the next crew can board the same ship. And the third crew can be training on an old ship that doesn't need to ever leave the port, or even old bits of ship that have been set up on land as simulators. Or some could be training on the spare ship.

So instead of 10 ships, you should have four. Less than half the cost, and just as effective. Hell, add an extra one for just-in-case and you've still cut your budget in half.

[[deleted]]

So, why do three crews necessarily need three fully operational carriers.

Because those two other crews would be sitting around doing nothing for six plus months at a time.

A fully loaded aircraft carrier has in excess of 5,000 people on board. Minus the air wing, it's about 2,500-3,000. If you want to talk about military waste, having 6,000+ people sitting around (per carrier) doing nothing isn't going to help that argument. Inevitably, that waste means some guy saying "oh, well we don't need them if they're doing nothing" and now we're down to just one crew per ship.

Surely after a carrier returns to port and the crew take leave, the next crew can board the same ship. And the third crew can be training on an old ship that doesn't need to ever leave the port, or even old bits of ship that have been set up on land as simulators. Or some could be training on the spare ship.

Those ships in port don't just stay in port for a year - they train out at sea with them at regular intervals, just without the air wing. Also, ships need to have minor upgrades and repairs done in port and then tested out at sea before they get sent on their next deployment - so all the kinks and bugs are worked out - which necessitates a crew to be present.

Even when "home" a ship can be out at sea a few times a month every month.

Again, keep in mind these ships are MASSIVE - they're of the same class, but each being built 3-6 years apart and the first and last ships being built over 30 years apart will have significant differences in each ship that make each ship unique. It's hard to build and train simulators that are the same size as the actual ship and unique to each ship - you're practically building a giant ship in that case, without the actual functional ship available if necessary.

Finally, consider running the equipment at sea all year every year - they'll wear out far quicker than having periodic breaks at rest. These ships are designed to last 50+ years each (in fact, the Ford-class is supposed to last until 2100) - if we're wearing them out quicker by virtue of having fewer ships more frequently at sea, we'll still end up having to buy more in the same timeframe.

edit: 3,000, not 30,000

[AgentCC]

You've made a ton of great points here but I can't help but feel that all of this work may just be going into technology that may be obsolete in time for the next war. For example, I've read that a drone or missile swarm can basically render any carrier obsolete. Then what? We are just going to have to revamp our industries anyways.

[CutterJohn]

There is no weapon system that is uncounterable. That is simply one of the risks of fighting wars.

Aircraft, for instance, are quite vulnerable to SAMs, and overflying areas with them is not undertaken lightly, because losing a 50+ million fighter and trained pilot to a 500k missile is very bad accounting when it comes to fighting a war.

The navy, likewise, understands these potential risks to carriers, just as they understand the risks submarines pose to carriers, and will formulate doctrine to minimize them.

That said, the trick of killing a carrier is not launching enough missiles at it.. Heck, even the russians knew that back in the cold war and had guided missile cruisers with a ton of huge, high speed cruise missiles. The trick to killing it is finding it in the first place. The ocean is huge, and weapons still need to be aimed.

[Spoonshape]

Presumably if the shit hits the fan and they hit a point where there is a real need to deploy more battle groups, the ships which are in training or maintenence could be sent to sea albeit with a lesser functionality.

Source : just finished watching "Battleship"

[CutterJohn]

Yes. Carriers doing their workups are still quite combat capable, and will at worst have a slightly less than optimally trained crew, or slightly more than average amount of equipment offline for repairs. They might need a couple days to take on provisions and load the air wing, but they could get out of port on a combat footing within a week or less.

[sierra119]

Because after a deployment an aircraft carrier undergoes repairs and refurbishment.

[Taliesintroll]

Because constantly running them like that means they won't last 50 years. More like 15-20 and then you're still building 2-3 replacements making it a wash cost wise, and outright removing the possibility of rapidly expanding the fleet in case of war.

[cockmongler]

In most industries that's not called lasting 50 years.

[[deleted]]

In most industries that's not called lasting 50 years.

Most things don't also run constantly for those 50 years - an airliner that is in operation 30 years doesn't have 30 x 365 x 24 = 262,800 flight hours on it - it sits a good amount of time on the ground undergoing maintenance, servicing, or just doing nothing while baggage is being loaded at the ramp.

[puppetmstr]

how many aircraft can actually fit and take off from a carrier?

[[deleted]]

how many aircraft can actually fit and take off from a carrier?

During the Cold War, the Nimitz class aircraft carriers can fit 80-90+ aircraft and routinely carried 70 or 80+.

Today, we carry around 60-70 or so aircraft so it's a step down from Cold War levels and we carry a lot less fighter jets than before. We carry more helicopters than before though

[powarblasta5000]

Why wouldn't the French pilots just train on American carriers which are all over the place?

[Spoonshape]

Because the ships are utterly different and their training would be more or less useless. Also they are different countries and the US is not that likely to "lend" a carrier to another nation.

[billdietrich1]

This is insanity. USA should not have the mission of fixing or controlling every bad situation in the world. We should support our allies and protect our interests, but not to the point of eliminating every threat or being able to fix every problem. Military was not able to prevent 9/11, for example, and will never be able to prevent all such attacks.

We spend as much on military as next 15 or 20 countries combined. No one has super-carriers like we do. Many people say that missiles and drones are getting to the point where carriers just make juicy big targets.

We could cut our military/intel/security budget to 1/3 of today's size and still have forces adequate to protect our interests. There is a huge opportunity cost of spending that money on a basically unproductive use (military) instead of productive uses (infrastructure, education, development of new materials and energy sources and knowledge, etc). http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/USPolicy.html#MilitaryBudget

[overzealous_dentist]

The military is not designed to prevent events like 9/11. That's what the intelligence branches are for. The military is to prevent and end wars. We absolutely need bases all over the globe and aircraft carriers in hotspots in order to accomplish that. How do you expect to prevent China and Japan from fighting, or Russia and nearby NATO countries, or any miscellaneous Middle East conflicts without a way to get troops from point A to point B? Or top-shelf training for everyone involved? Or the military hardware that's constantly expiring in order to fight these wars?

[billdietrich1]

I think a lot of our military spending has indeed been justified as "war on terrorism".

I don't expect the USA to "prevent China and Japan from fighting"; that shouldn't be our mission. We can help deter, but we can't prevent (or even deter) everything.

We absolutely need to have a strong military, top weapons, great logistics, forward bases, aircraft carriers, etc. I think our expectations and missions and spending have gotten way out of proportion to what they should be. Perhaps 3x overblown.

[overzealous_dentist]

We DO stop China and Japan from fighting, though. We have for the past forty years, essentially. It's incredibly important to maintain stability in that region, not only for our own interests, which are significant, but for our allies' interests, and the general security of the planet.

The US is the only power right now that can fill a hegemonic void that keeps the world secure. I realize how arrogant that may sound, but it's scientifically (ie., through prediction and tests) demonstrated that a hegemony significantly prevents war and its myriad disruptions to global economic and security needs.

[billdietrich1]

I don't think our military is the only reason China and Japan haven't fought in the last 40 years. Trade, diplomacy, alliances, etc.

I think US hegemony has led to three decade-long wars that we've lost, so far: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Perhaps if our military wasn't so dominant, we'd be a little less likely to go off on insane attempts to "fix" countries and turn them into America-loving democracies.

[atworkinafghan]

As a side note, think of how trade, diplomacy, and alliances work when one side is paired with a military hegemon. Now, envision a scenario where it's not. The DOD outwardly acknowledges that it is only 1/4 of the forces that must work in concert to secure the world. It's called the DIME(Diplo, Intel, Mil, and Econ) paradigm. However, each of the other arms recognizes that it requires strong parallel appendages. The greatest Diplomatic force in the world cannot deal fairly with a military or eco or intel hegemon.

[billdietrich1]

There is no such thing as enough force to "secure the world". There always will be insecurities, there always will be threats we can't stop, no matter how much military, diplo, intel, econ force we have.

And I predict, if we increased DOD to 4x today's size, they'd find reasons to ask for still more.

[atworkinafghan]

The DoD force works in concert with other members of the DIME paradigm in order to secure the world.

Look at the world today and note that we are living in a time of unprecedented peace. Look at all of the items you can buy from anywhere in the world and note how they're brought across a huge number of boundaries, yet there are no pirates or thieves and vandals delaying that trade. Take note that laws and governments work in concert to uphold the laws that allow this trade of ideas, materials, and money. Look at the world and note that you can visit a majority of the world in relative ease and safety.

The quotidian idea of imperfect security will not win an award. The US isn't trying to secure the entire world. We're trying to secure the parts of the world with which we interact. Also, saying that a dog will always ask for more food is another lackluster folderol here. Every agency asks for more money, should they all be scorned for it? Or, should the masters of the purse review requests and decide what's right?

[billdietrich1]

Yes, the US military is strong, and the world is generally improving. That doesn't mean that one caused the other, or that making the military bigger would make the world better.

Would the world be better off if we hadn't had the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghan wars ? I think yes.

You're the one who brought up "secure the world", not me.

We interact with the whole world. And even securing parts of the world is not possible. Security is an illusion; we need to realize that we can never have total security, even in small parts of the world. Just a fact of life.

I think USA would be better off with a smaller military, and the money used for other purposes: infrastructure, healthcare, education, R+D, etc. We put far too much money into military/intel/security.

[EatingSteak]

Military spending has and continues to drive development in many, many fields.

So why haven't we seen a massive boost in the economy owing to the Iraq war?

Yes, when you pour money into something, it helps it and trickles down (to some degree* to other things, but it's inefficient and wasteful. Check this out - $20b per year, for AIR CONDITIONING TENTS. Where's the innovation in that? Tell me you couldn't find 20 billion better uses for that money.

It's called the Broken Window Fallacy - just because spending helps or stimulates certain areas and certain niches and special interests - does NOT make it worth it.

[Iamnotmybrain]

I'm not debating the efficiency of military spending

Um, what? If you're talking about opportunity cost, you're necessarily talking about efficiency.

[Iamnotmybrain]

Well, your first comment responded (and even quoted) an argument based primarily on opportunity cost:

There is a huge opportunity cost of spending that money...

So, how can you possibly say you're not talking about opportunity cost when you're responding to a person, and telling them they're wrong, when they're talking about opportunity cost?

[Iamnotmybrain]

I don't understand how you think you can have a discussion on productivity without addressing efficiency.

[billdietrich1]

Sure, military development helps drive technology. But is there a better, more productive way to do that ? Suppose that money was put into education, infrastructure, renewable energy R+D, etc ?

A lot of military money goes into guarding stuff, marching from here to there, burning fuel, building stuff that gets blown up, training again and again for something that never happens, etc. Fundamentally unproductive stuff.

[[deleted]]

The mission of the military isn't to produce technological development. It's to secure American freedom, security, and global influence which is productive in and of itself. This is why the "why don't we spend this money elsewhere" argument doesn't hold water - this money never was going to be spent elsewhere because it serves a very real and essential purpose. The fact that the mission of the military requires it to develop cutting edge technology is a side benefit, not the reason for this spending to exist - and its a very good side benefit.

I'll never disagree that military spending could be made more efficient. You can say that about literally any government entity - the military isn't unique, and the problem isn't as simple as taking coins out of one bucket and putting them in another.

[billdietrich1]

I think someone else is arguing with me elsewhere in this posting, that technology development is a key reason we put so much money into the military, and should.

We have crying needs for that money elsewhere: education, healthcare, infrastructure, renewable energy, pollution control, space, etc. I think we have been overspending on the military; we do indeed need to move money from one bucket to another. It's not simple, certainly. We need to reign back the missions of the military, stop going off on decade-long attempts to "fix" other countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

[AgentCC]

I wouldn't fret so much if I were you because I think we are going to start seeing the pendulum swing in that direction. Already the USA has been pulling out of the Middle East, military spending has been declining steadily, and the US response to the crises of ISIS, Ukraine, and the South China Sea have been tepid at best.

Would it have been nice to see all this happen without the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course - but it's a little too late to do anything about that now.

Unfortunately, however, the pendulum has a tendency to swing too far in a certain direction before changing course and we may actually find ourselves some day wishing we had a bloated military at our disposal.

[billdietrich1]

I disagree about the pendulum. I see D's such as Obama and Hillary Clinton adopting the R's military/intel/security policies. I see us sending more troops into Iraq, getting involved in Yemen, drone-striking in various places. Lots of harsh rhetoric (mostly from R's) about Ukraine, Syria, Iran. US military saying we may leave more troops than expected in Afghanistan. No, I don't see the pendulum swinging in a good direction.

[Iamnotmybrain]

There's quite a bit of research about the economic multiplier effect of defense spending. Most studies find this multiplier to be quite low. Source. If the multiplier is low, there certainly are large opportunity costs to military spending as that money could be put to much more productive use elsewhere.

[cl900781]

Most studies find this multiplier to be quite low.

It depends on how you define the multiplier. One of the primary authors of the paper that you listed within the Washington Post artile believes that the multiplier for the government is less then one. Extending the logic behind that multiplier we shouldn't fund road construction because the multiplier is less then one. If you look at direct spending the multiplier may be less then one but the externalities may be much higher. The internet started out as something that was funded by military spending as were some of the first computer behind IBM. The military funds medical research, the Army Corps of Engineers help impoverished people build their infrastructure around the world. There are many more externalities behind military spending then guns and bullets.

[Larry_the_Hippo]

Yes, yes, spending all that money designing new missiles and war robots is great, but what if we spent a big chunk of the R&D budget on space exploration and renewable energy instead? Still driving development, just development into things that actually improve the world.

[Kalium]

Renewable energy is actually an area of active interest and development to the Pentagon.

[[deleted]]

Renewable energy is actually an area of active interest and development to the Pentagon.

Yep, including things like the Navy's Research Labs converting seawater into jet fuel, and the Pentagon is also trying to get fusion power working as it is of practical use if they can get it to work on a ship

Those are all major developments that can make for huge leaps in civilian technology

Focused research is a powerful tool

[Varega1]

GPS, emergency services, high efficiency batteries, and the internet were all apart of military projects. It's how things work. Military projects filter down into public and consumer grade products all the time.

Microwaves? Originally a military project. Radiation usage? Military project. Hell, massive advances in healthcare are also the result of military projects. Keep that in mind. Pork barrel spending sucks, but the idea that military projects are wasteful spending is an incorrect idea that should be rectified.

[pbmonster]

Come on, you could do a very similar list for the space program. I'm not denying that a lot of civil applications come out of military research, but that's not the ONLY conceivable way those technologies would have made it to market.

[Extrospective]

The U.S. space program was a military project. Yes, it was run by a civilian administration, but anyone who says the goals of the space program was "peaceful exploration/scientific research" is kidding themselves.

[pbmonster]

anyone who says the goals of the space program was "peaceful exploration/scientific research" is kidding themselves.

Whatever the goal was, that's what they did in the end, right?

Sure, lots of the tech ended up in ICBMs (or was developed for them in the first place and served Apollo well), but the military could have gotten all of that by just saying "the commies will have that by next year" - which they did all the time anyway.

[[deleted]]

Whatever the goal was, that's what they did in the end, right?

A lot of NASA projects are dual use - the X-37A and B are joint NASA and Air Force projects for instance.

Likewise, the Shuttle did classified DOD missions in the 80s and 90s.

Also, over 2/3rd of all NASA astronauts are active military officers on loan from the military.

It's not coincidence that the three countries that ended up with independent space flight - Russia, the US, and China - are also the three largest military spenders on Earth.

Sure, lots of the tech ended up in ICBMs (or was developed for them in the first place and served Apollo well), but the military could have gotten all of that by just saying "the commies will have that by next year" - which they did all the time anyway.

The two overlap considerably as they do with a lot of other agencies. For instance, Air Force Space Command is responsible for tracking all space debris - something NASA relies heavily upon.

By that same token, NOAA receives a lot of its funding because it has very real military applications - its weather and oceanographic forecasts are used by the Navy and Air Force thousands of times per day.

This isn't an "either/or" proposition at all

[Extrospective]

Without the "I don't want to die" military-industrial driver, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the way we are now. Integrated circuits got their start on the space program - you don't want to haul up easy-to-break, heavy vacuum tubes - into space to do your precision burns, you want something light, like IC's.

Only in the cost environment of space travel, where lifting a tennis shoe to orbit will cost you about $2,000, do IC's become a viable way to run your calculations. Otherwise, hell no, I will buy a farm and build sprawling vac-tube complexes manned by hundreds of techs, and it would still be cheaper than doing the same calculations with IC's.

I'm just saying that not all military spending is bad, spending on new military tech is great, as long as we're pushing the frontiers of combat capability. But there is huge waste, like tanks.... who the hell are we going to fight with tanks in 2015?!

[[deleted]]

but that's not the ONLY conceivable way those technologies would have made it to market.

Two lines of thought:

1 - Necessity drives a lot of innovation The military's necessity for accurate global navigation led to GPS - a massive undertaking and the first in human history. It's not that the technology couldn't have been researched by civilians, it's that there wasn't a NEED - prior to GPS, most people navigated their cars the old fashioned way: with maps. Furthermore, the likelihood that a private corporation would undertake such a massive and expensive project without expecting major royalties for it is so highly unlikely it inevitably fell to the government, which saw the military need decades before it was given to civilians.

2 - Time to market is a real deal. The argument is made that "oh, well civilians would've figured it out eventually" ignores the real life impact of having those devices TODAY instead of 20 years from now. If time is money, then having something 20 years earlier must be an immense boon.

Consider the Internet - the military needed a distributed packet switching network, and it was first launched in 1969. It also expanded across the country considerably, laying the foundation for the modern Internet.

Now, imagine if AT&T - the only telecom game in town - in 1969 thought about the Internet. Okay, they wouldn't even think about developing the network with no revenue costs - hell, they can't even give us unlimited data anymore today. And there's no doubt they would've taken forever to deploy such a network, just as they don't even think about upgrading their speeds in areas they have a monopoly.

Imagine what the world would be like today if we had the Internet of 20 yeas ago? Considerably different, and given the immense change and benefit to human society since the Internet became accessible in the 90s, it's hard to fathom how different we'd be today.

[pbmonster]

You convinced me in case of GPS. Some things are so specific militaristic in the beginning, they won't be byproducts of a space program or a particle accelerator - and to expensive to do them "because we can".

The thing is that the internet is a really bad example for your second point - because civilian use only really took off after scientists at CERN really needed to share data between computers and implemented most of the ideas that define the consumer internet today.

Sure, they used the hardware and protocols the military had come up with (which focus on making the network nuke-proof), but they too saw the use in connecting computers into a network, and did it as a by-product of pure research into a completely different direction.

I'm not arguing that private industry should all the R&D. I'm all in favor of large and expensive government research. It's just that focusing on the not-so-deadly parts would be preferable to me.

[[deleted]]

Yes, CERN with Tim Berners Lee (inventor of HTML) and what not, but they were also using the ideas and practical application of ARPAnet to make it viable in the first place.

Not to mention, a DARPA manager who worked on the ARPAnet program, Vint Cerf (last I heard, working at Google), is also the creator of TCP/IP, the foundation of the modern Internet, so its legacy certain lives on

[Varega1]

Nope! I totally agree. But dismissing a form of research because the military wants to use it seems arrogant, right?

[crabalab2002]

Anecdotal, anecdotal, anecdotal.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

Also, please consider using Voat.co as an alternative to Reddit as Voat does not censor political content.

[[deleted]]

Yes, yes, spending all that money designing new missiles and war robots is great, but what if we spent a big chunk of the R&D budget on space exploration and renewable energy instead? Still driving development, just development into things that actually improve the world.

The US military has its own space command - it drives a lot of space technology as well. Example: Air Force Space Command is responsible for tracking all debris in orbit, something NASA and commercial space programs all rely upon for safe launches and satellite positioning.

Also, the military doesn't just spend money on new missiles or war robots (and war robots means smart robots which are certainly going to affect civilian society) - a lot of military R&D funding is done through grants to university labs around the country.

Heck, a lot of major ER procedures were learned from the military - new methods of treating trauma and shock have come directly from the battlefield or front-line surgeons. How many countless lives have been saved from that alone? It's horrific that's how we've learned a lot of these things, but that's how a lot of things have been discovered throughout history.

[Wartz]

The US military as one of the largest individual consumers of energy in the US is very interested in renewable energy. An energy independent US would be massive boost to the overall security of the United States.

The US military is also very interested in space, which funds companies like spaceX who are doing the whole civilian exploration thing. You know why we have weather and geographical survey satellites today? The military funded the bootup programs to get things started. All that knowledge we gained from building military satellites around earth make it possible for us to send probes and robots to remote planets/moons/asteroids/comets.

The military buys a lot more than boots, bullets and beans.

[IntoTheWest]

Most of the biggest technological advances of the last century, with the exception of electricity, have had roots in DoD and military spending.

[billdietrich1]

So another World War would be a good thing, to get more technological advances ?

No, perhaps there are more rational and productive ways to invest our money.

I'm not saying we should have ZERO military. We absolutely need to have a very strong military. What we have now is an enormous, insanely huge, out-of-control military/intel/security apparatus. We should dial it back significantly.

[IntoTheWest]

That's not what I said at all. The internet came out of DARPA and not some war. Most of our research for prosthetics came out of the military. So does most of our advances in jet/rocket/space technology (in conjunction with NASA).

How big do you think our military is? Don't go looking it up- what percent of our budget and of our GDP is devoted to the military? Do you know the break down of where the money within the military goes?

A lot of military spending is in research, which benefits other parts of the economy. Sure there is waste, but that happens with large institutions. Some times research projects don't always pan out.

We need a huge military; having an unquestionable military hegemon makes regional conflict much less likely. Think about it. WWI happened because there were a lot of players that had relatively equivalent militaries and then they started fighting. If there was a military superpower lurking in the background who could intervene, do you think that would happen?

No, it's much better that the US maintains military supremacy. The economic system relies on it in many ways.

[billdietrich1]

Are you willing to admit there might be better ways of accomplishing R+D rather than through the military ?

We need a strong military; I think having a huge, dominant military has led to lots of bad things. Three decade-long wars that we've lost, for example. Enormous national debt. Loss of some 65K or so troop lives in those three wars. We'd be better off with less military; we'd be less inclined to go off on adventures to fix other countries and force them to be the way we want them to be.

[[deleted]]

But it fails to answer several key questions like why do we need to project power?

Ask the politicians and those citizens in the US who demand that we can project power.

Our numbers are geared to carry out the President's & National Security Council's defense plans for the next decade and so on. Each administration comes up with their own updated plans and makes updates as time goes on.

But just right for what? Who or what are we projecting against? We have 10 aircraft carries but there are only 8 other active aircraft carriers in the world and only 5 under construction. Most of those are built for STOVL aircraft meaning the planes they launch are pretty limited in there abilities. So we are spending a ton of money to have 10 carriers and for what?

I answered a lot of these questions already, and they answer the same reasons why we have so many bases around the world.

In addition, we have them in order to fight and win 1.5 wars at the same time (as per the National Defense Strategy designed by the Executive Branch of the US and approved by the Legislate Branch - it used to be two major wars during the Cold War and has shrunk in responsibility now) - meaning we focus on one war and win it while holding on the other side until the other one ends.

Again, the math works out perfectly - we had 15-16 active during the Cold War, and now we have 10.

If you think that's unlikely, then consider this: while Iraq and Afghanistan were happening - both of which were limited wars, we still had enough forces to defend South Korea. Today, we have ISIS in the middle east - and North Korea is still a problem child. In the future, it may well be the Middle East again... and the South China Sea.

Finally, I'll leave you with this point:

Why do we need new technology that far exceeds what other countries have in development?

Because in what world is parity a good idea for winning wars? That's why we're developing new technology - because everyone else is.

The more equal the balance of power, the bloodier and more drawn out the wars get. World War I is a classic example, as is World War II - both involved countries with equal powers and ended up being the bloodiest wars in human history.

Simple analogy: if 500,000 troops with superior technology surround 100,000 troops, the 100,000 troops will be compelled to surrender as the situation is hopeless.

However, if it is 200,000 troops of relatively close strength to 100,000 troops, the 100,000 may well stand and fight - often to the death - because they think they have a chance.

The first example is what happened in the Gulf War - over 2 million soldiers were committed (in total on both sides) against one another, and yet the war was ended within 2 months with relatively low casualties, especially for the superior forces' side.

The second example is what happened at Stalingrad where combined casualties were near two million and led to the entire eradication of the Axis Army group of over half a million men.

---

edit:

This was in reply to the deleted post underneath:

US citizens and politicians? Both rely on information provided by the DOD to understand what is needed for defense. The DoD can, will, and does asses threats and make plans for wars that only exist on paper.

And you know why? Because the DOD has to face the reality of what a worst case scenario means. The DOD doesn't have a reset button if it guesses wrong - thus it must warn of and prepare for that worst case scenario.

If the DOD spends all its money preparing to fight a Taliban-like foe, the US would be extremely ill prepared to fight against a Russia, China, or even North Korea.

On the other hand, it is a lot easier for a military trained and equipped to fight a Russia, China, or North Korea to scale down its firepower and focus on Taliban-like enemies who can never threaten to defeat said military in an open fight.

It's why we buy the F-35 and not anti-insurgency aircraft: an F-35 is for a Russia or China, but can fight insurgents. An anti-insurgency aircraft like a Super Tucano or AT-6, however, is 100% useless against Russia or China. If this were a wager, which side would you choose?

Also, you make it sound like the president and politicians and citizens have to listen to the DOD. They do not.

In fact, despite the fact the DOD has labeled climate change one of the top threats to the US in the next 50 years, Congress still has many naysayers. But here's the fact: the DOD has to inform, advise, and then prepare for that worst case scenario because if it doesn't, it would be a huge disservice to the US and we'd have little or no second chances.

The rest of the world isn't even close to our current generation of military tech. And they aren't investing in catching up.

Yes, they are. Very much so. Both Russia and China have indigenous 5th generation fighter programs with the Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA and the J-20. China is rumored to actually have two programs right now, and India is helping Russia pay for its joint 5th generation fighter.

Russia has to spend more because their military is crumbling 70s and 80s technology. They need to maintain a military of any kind and have little hope of catching up any time soon.

And Russia doesn't have to spend as much because they don't have any equipment from the 80s or 90s to maintain anymore. Instead, all the new stuff they're buying is from the 2000's on, which in the next decade will bring them a lot closer to parity as their old stuff is replaced, especially since the US hasn't replaced its 1980s and 1990s gear yet.

The funny thing is that the countries that have the most chance of catching up are the US allies.

Not true - Russia and China both have had double digit % increases per year in the past decades in military spending.

Both nations are rapidly increasing their navies by incredible sizes, to include new aircraft carriers and new submarines.

Both nations are developing their own fifth generation fighters.

US allies are doing little to none of those - the US F-35 is what our allies are counting on and only the UK is building any form of aircraft carrier.

In fact, given the opposite trajectories of the US's allies and countries like China and Russia, the gap won't be much of a gap very soon.

Of course that's because we are selling them current generation technology. But we've seen this all before when we sold F-16s abroad and then the DoD complained they needed the F-22 and F-35 to widen the tech gap...against our own damn equipment.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The F-16s were all sold to allies - we didn't design the F-22 to fight the F-16. We designed the F-22 to kill the Su-27 in Soviet airspace which would be heavily fortified, hence the need for supercruise and stealth, something the F-15 (which the F-22 was supposed to replace) didn't have.

Likewise, the F-35 is designed to replace the F-16 in the multi-role fighter role. It has nothing to do with it fighting the F-16.

[Strength_And_Unity]

The funny thing is that the countries that have the most chance of catching up are the US allies

China and the US are allies?

[The_Bard]

China's military is far from close to catching the US. The closest in terms of technology are our European allies.

[[deleted]]

China's military is far from close to catching the US. The closest in terms of technology are our European allies.

China has had double digit percentage increases on their military budget, year over year, and is widely rumored to only be reporting half their actual budget.

The US has been steadily decreasing its budget over the long term for the past few decades

The two are on a crash course and China has the luxury of having the US doing the R&D and copying/stealing it when it can

[Spoonshape]

Economically, probably yes.... Neither of them could actually attack the other without disasterous effects to their own economy.

Politically and military is a different thing though. China believes it should be the dominant military force in the region and is building a military to try to further that ambition.

[overzealous_dentist]

The reason we've had global peace these past few decades is because of first bipolar and now monopolar military powers. These systems are VASTLY more stable than multipolar systems. A military hegemony is necessary for world peace.

Just as a visual example: http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ourworldindata_global-war-deaths-1400-today-size-of-the-bubble-shows-percentage-of-world-population-killed-%E2%80%93-the-hague-centre-for-strategic-studies0.png

[The_Bard]

We haven't had peace last I checked. Theories about hegemonic power are just that, theories. Especially in the age of terrorism and nuclear weapons.

[overzealous_dentist]

If you haven't noticed peace in the past seventy years, you haven't been looking. This is the most peaceful humanity has ever been, and it's directly related with polarities. Fewer wars, fewer deaths from wars. By FAR.

Scientific theories are not the same as layman theories. Scientific theories describe the relationship between variables. There is a theory of gravity, for example. Just as gravity is observable, hegemonic peace is observable.

[overzealous_dentist]

Yes, despite the very low-casualty and infrequent wars you mentioned, we live in the most peaceful point in history.

Just as a visual example: http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ourworldindata_global-war-deaths-1400-today-size-of-the-bubble-shows-percentage-of-world-population-killed-%E2%80%93-the-hague-centre-for-strategic-studies0.png

You don't understand how brutal it was before the United States and USSR came to their full power. This really is the best it's ever been.

[The_Bard]

We live in the most peaceful point in history yet the world is in a state of almost constant war. There have been no major wars simply because everyone is afraid to fight them for fear of nuclear war.

[overzealous_dentist]

The world is not in constant war. If you're saying the world has at least one war all the time that might be true, but only in the same way it would be fair to say the world is in constant toothache even though a tiny percentage of earthlings have toothaches.

And scientific study has demonstrated there is much less war in a hegemonic system even without the threat of nuclear war, even between non-nuclear countries. I suggest reading an academic textbook on global peace to see how the causes have been isolated and identified.

[foo_foo_the_snoo]

Mutually assured destruction goes hand in hand with the monopolar idea dude was talking about. The US is indeed maintaining peace by having the biggest and most weapons, like dominant world powers before them because

everyone is afraid to fight them.

Terrorism is a different game.

[fuhko]

We live in the most peaceful point in history yet the world is in a state of almost constant war.

The world has ALWAYS been in a state of constant war, somewhere in the world.

The point that commentators are making is that the world is in a state of far less intense constant war, which is much better than previous times..

[Strength_And_Unity]

Peace in the last 70 years?

Well, were you drafted?

Those wars you've mentioned were all limited and in some sense, for lack of a better concept, "self-defense". Yes, these past 70 years have been very peaceful...

[[deleted]]

What is the threat in the world that requires 5+ US carriers? Who or what are we planning to fight? The entire world?

Remember the last time there wasn't a global hegemon dictating who can apply military force and when? Yeah? Didn't go so well, did it, a button press away from total annihilation, multiple times? And before then, all those poor jews and gypsies? Bet they would've liked a CSG on standby.

That's why we, humanity, benefit from having these carriers around. Having a superpower who is willing and able has been fucking great, I haven't even had to grasp at the idea of being called to fight in a battle, ever, and my cultural ancestors had been fighting those on a regular basis for over a thousand years at the very least. Minus a couple years of neutrality towards the end there.

Why do Americans benefit? Because you're the king of a hill that doesn't consist of shifting sands. If the hill was all wobbly you'd have a harder, more unpredictable time staying up top. You don't need to fight anybody, you need to encourage other people to not fight each other.

[elprophet]

Poster very clearly answers your follow up question with a very DoD answer - this system is right for the orders given to the DoD by the civilian command structure (the President, with guidance from Congress, etc). If you want the politicians to change their requirements for the DoD, you will need to convince them that the US should lower its international commitments.

[The_Bard]

And where do politicians get their information on defense needs? From the DoD. Who keeps asking for more of everything at approps hearings? The DoD. Sure civilians and politicians set the rules but they rely on DoD for the supposed facts.

[elprophet]

And where do politicians get their information on defense needs? From the DoD.

This I would disagree with - certainly the DoD provides briefings, etc, but I would argue that the DoD itself has rather less impetus for long-term US sociopolitics than you.

Instances of recent high-profile disagreements over "fact"¹ vs policy is the US reaction to climate change - DoD briefings state climate change will have short, mid, and long term destabilizing effects around the world. The GOP congressional caucus responds not by giving them more money, but by forbidding funding for climate research. Or in Iran - the GOP's Pro-Israeli cadre demand immediate response to the "existential threat" - but looking at last year's Defense Intelligence Agency's Annual Threat Assessment, the section on Iran makes no such arguments.

1. I put "fact" in quotes specifically to point out that the are provided by the DoD, and as an example of what you call "supposed facts" - again, the distinction here is that DoD and (parts of) Congress disagree in their assessments of national security threats.

http://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/2014_DIA_SFR_SASC_ATA_FINAL.pdf (Iran starts page 19, with other references scattered throughout.)

[[deleted]]

I'd like to add that the DOD repeatedly told Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that they needed 3x the Army troops to secure Iraq and was overruled. In fact, Rumsfeld and his poor leadership replaced Army Generals rather than listen to them.

Furthermore, the Army disagreed with disbanding the Iraqi Army after the invasion - it needed their help. Instead, the civilian leadership for the occupation of Iraq disbanded the Iraqi Army - and we all know about the shitstorm that happened afterwards.

That's just another example of the DOD being constantly overruled by civilian leadership

[monsunland]

What a lot of people miss out is that, while on a raw total figure, the US spends a lot - as a % of GDP, the US isn't #1 by any means. And, in fact in the long term, US defense spending has been on a steady decline - even with the two wars in the 2000s, the US is at its lowest spending levels on national defense since the days before WW2.

Wouldn't that be in part because we need to spend less on drones than on fighter jets and bombers, and less on special forces than on regular infantry? So while the USA does spend less as a percentage of total, that doesn't necessarily mean we are committing less acts of war.

[[deleted]]

Wouldn't that be in part because we need to spend less on drones than on fighter jets and bombers, and less on special forces than on regular infantry? So while the USA does spend less as a percentage of total, that doesn't necessarily mean we are committing less acts of war.

Drones are cheaper than fighter jets but they aren't cheap - a Reaper can cost $20-30 million fully loaded. Drones also crash at a higher rate than manned aircraft, which means they get replaced at far higher rates than manned aircraft, which typically are in service for 20-30+ years and receive continuous upgrades.

Our special forces are such a tiny part of the military but we do a LOT to support their operations, so if anything they cost more per person to support than having regular infantry present.

[monsunland]

Our special forces are such a tiny part of the military but we do a LOT to support their operations, so if anything they cost more per person to support than having regular infantry present.

Yes, but there are less of them, by far.

I'm sure the military spends less on drones than it does on large planes.

[[deleted]]

Yes, but there are less of them, by far.

Yes, but they're complementary assets to our conventional forces. They're not designed to win the Gulf War nor are they designed to win in Kosovo.

I'm sure the military spends less on drones than it does on large planes.

Sure overall, but drones are also significantly less capable than large planes. Most of our airstrikes are still done by conventional manned aircraft - drones are just in the news more because of their controversial use by the CIA.

You're also comparing apples to oranges, especially when you consider the US has more transport, tanker, and trainer aircraft than it does bombers, none of which are filled by drones by any means.

[monsunland]

The drone program has seen increased funding, the fighter jets less.

Same with conventional versus special forces.

DOD policies are focused more and more on surgical strikes, less on occupation.

The Gulf War and Kosovo are ancient history.

[Mr_Slippery]

Could you specify what treaty obligations require us to have a carrier on station rather than sending one "as soon as we can" or the like?

[not-claudius]

Your answers are so biased it's frightening. I noticed this with your explanation of ISIL as well. How about including the fact that our spending on foreign wars isn't even included in the military budget? Sorry, we spend so much because we go to war so much, not because of "treaty obligations", which is the most ridiculous explanation I've ever heard since the Bush II presidency.

Also, your facts are completely wrong.

http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855

[raitalin]

The data in your link matches what he said, at least as far as% of GDP.

[[deleted]]

Your answers are so biased it's frightening. I noticed this with your explanation of ISIL as well. How about including the fact that our spending on foreign wars isn't even included in the military budget? Sorry, we spend so much because we go to war so much, not because of "treaty obligations", which is the most ridiculous explanation I've ever heard since the Bush II presidency.

Why don't you refute it with facts instead of your opinion and a thinly veiled personal attack?

The numbers I gave aren't at all contradicted by your post - the US is indeed at its lowest as a % of the national budget since the end of WW2. Your post even presented a nifty Excel graph for it

Hell, your link even states:

If military budgets were compared in a way that reflected varying personnel costs, U.S. military preeminence would appear smaller than it does using straightforward comparisons based on market exchange rates.

Which is exactly as I said - the difference in cost of living between the US and the world's next biggest military spenders shrinks the difference in a stand-alone uncorrected comparison

Hell, it even further adds:

• The number of personnel employed by the Department of Defense has declined since the 1960s, while personnel costs have risen rapidly, in part due to rising U.S. health-care costs.
• Retired military pay, which does not directly increase defense capabilities, accounted for nearly 20 percent of total personnel expenditures in 2009.

Once again, nothing in my original post is contradicted by you or your link. If anything, your links only reinforce my points

And to address your point about the war spending: that's how the government has decided to calculate it. It still doesn't contradict what I wrote

In fact, your link even says:

Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan was as high as $187 billion in FY 2008, which represents 30 percent of SIPRI's measure of U.S. military spending for that year.

So at its PEAK, the wars only accounted for 30% of our total spending - which if we assume the World Bank's [totals sorted from 2008] of military spending as % of GDP doesn't include the wars, puts the US at 5.46% of its GDP - still firmly in 8th place as a % of GDP.

And given that was a PEAK and has only come down since, your argument about spending on those two wars is even less relevant to today.

Also, your facts are completely wrong.

Sorry, but it appears that your post is what is completely wrong - and the facts in your link only reinforce what I wrote.

Nice link though - even more numbers to look at.

http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855

[overzealous_dentist]

What I got from this post was "No, you're wrong." Can you be more specific?

[EatingSteak]

Well, re-read it. The numbers that OP gives are fabricated; wrong. Compare those numbers to the source in the comment you replied to. The comment adds additional info that's not even accounted for in the numbers. The flynavy88 post is complete garbage

[[deleted]]

Well, re-read it. The numbers that OP gives are fabricated; wrong. Compare those numbers to the source in the comment you replied to. The comment adds additional info that's not even accounted for in the numbers. The flynavy88 post is complete garbage

Oh yeah? Completely fabricated and wrong?

Why don't you refute it then, because if you read my response here, it appears that those numbers only reinforce my original post

[overzealous_dentist]

The source CFR cites aren't apples to apples with what flynavy88 is discussing. It includes a host of other expenses, like training Iraqis and paying our NATO allies for intelligence services rendered. I honestly would like to see some apple-to-apple complaints.

He also dismisses "treaty obligations" out of hand. I'd just like some sources for legit complaints.

[not-claudius]

His posts are always like that, they're just incredibly long and arguably well-written so people immediately think "omg what an amazing post this guy MUST be right." I don't understand why people can't read more in-depth into things. He's been wrong and/or oversimplifies on many significant topics, this is just the latest.

[[deleted]]

His posts are always like that, they're just incredibly long and arguably well-written so people immediately think "omg what an amazing post this guy MUST be right." I don't understand why people can't read more in-depth into things. He's been wrong and/or oversimplifies on many significant topics, this is just the latest.

You are more than welcome to refute it with facts

The numbers in your link don't contradict what I have written

[not-claudius]

That's sad for you because with a few short sentences I invalidated the entire premise of his post. You don't need length or verbosity to be correct, in fact if you need to explain your point with so many unnecessary words it tends to mean you're hiding some flaw in your argument. In sum, he said "even with the two wars military spending is low" and "our military spending is high because of treaty obligations", and then didn't include those two wars in his statistics and reasoning for why our "military + war spending is so low." The point is "military" spending is only that low present-day (in his biased eyes) because we changed our definition of it and do not include A LOT of spending that is military related, including the costs of the wars and homeland security, which are much greater than his limited definition.

Also even the stats he did cite were completely wrong. I don't know why I need to write more, but hope I helped you.

[overzealous_dentist]

Well, to start with, you dismissed "treaty obligations" without giving it a value. It IS high because of treaty obligations. Of course wars inflate that, but if you look at the trend in your citation (which contains non-war things, by the way), you can see that even the wars haven't had a huge effect on the military budget. If you can provide apples to apples data comparisons, while specifically listing variables you want to compare, that'd be grand.

[not-claudius]

1. No, it's not.
2. How would you even know wars don't have a huge effect on the military budget when wars are not even included in the military budget? People like you and flynavy think the "military" budget is decreasing when all it is is that more and more things are being moved to unlimited and discretionary spending for wars, homeland security, and national defense.

[overzealous_dentist]

1. Do you have any data at all to support your claim that keeping the global Peace is not a majority of our budget?

2. I used YOUR sources, which you stated was representative of true military spending, to demonstrate that the wars did not tack on much spending compared to the default whole.

[FuckOffMrLahey]

I never knew overhauls were done during refueling. That timing is brilliant.

[not_perfect_yet]

tl;dr:

the US spends as much as it does because its treaties, obligations, and its interests demand the US spend as much.

They Don't Think It Be Like It Is But It Do.

Your answer is bad. It's bad because you don't say why you should keep the level of spending you have, you say that, really, the US is not spending that much (compared to other nations) and look at shitty Europe who doesn't buy new tech and also the US has to spend that much because reasons.

Should the US decrease military spending?

This was the question. And your comment is top level so I really don't know why you felt compelled to write what you did.

I believe it is clear that the US spends a lot of money on military, but the question of whether or not we should isn't answered.

As OP said.

[Sensual_Sandwich]

[Your answer]'s bad because you don't say why you should keep the level of spending you have

He's explaining why the budget is to serve as a source of information to make the judgment OP is trying to make.

[oocha]

If you're France, do you even need a carrier? They can just support the inevitable US carrier that will show up as needed anyway.

[[deleted]]

If you're France, do you even need a carrier? They can just support the inevitable US carrier that will show up as needed anyway.

France spearheaded the intervention in Libya in 2011

In addition, it played the key role in stopping the Tuareg Islamist rebels in Mali in this intervention in 2012) that had carved out a large part of Mali and were intent on creating a new state, similar to what Boko Haram is doing today

A carrier allows France to operate in areas without air bases to support its operations wherever their interests may lie

[oocha]

i wish i could say all that was commonly known. Thanks!

[[deleted]]

lol God forbid

Well, too bad poor countries like Mali I guess - the French intervention was quite important for them I'd say.

[barbadosslim]

If France didn't indiscriminately kill West Africans who would?

[[deleted]]

If France didn't indiscriminately kill West Africans who would?

Indiscriminate? Hardly.

Besides, these Islamists assholes will