Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

World Police, we can take on the world, we could win a land war in Asia, god damn it!

24 (20.9%)

Matched Force, enough power to take on any other nation one on one and win

34 (29.6%)

Force Projection, enough to have influence around the world, but no real capability for a full on war in a foreign nation

10 (8.7%)

Fulfilling Treaty Obligations, no more

22 (19.1%)

Homeland Defense, no more

16 (13.9%)

Nuclear Deterrent is enough

4 (3.5%)

We need no military power at all

5 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 115

[Levi]

I can only hope (as pessimistic as that sounds) that other countries have at least some degree of this, as a lot of news media only reports on how inept the US is...

Its true.  I'm pretty sure almost all politicians are either corrupt, inept or lazy no matter what the country.

[Soulwynd]

Yeah, I edited it out to avoid people getting offended. I wouldn't generalize the entire population of a country, maybe for fun, but not in a serious manner.

But yeah, I feel fine generalizing the american government right now as it's full of huge douchebaggery.

I can only hope (as pessimistic as that sounds) that other countries have at least some degree of this, as a lot of news media only reports on how inept the US is...

Oh we do. Mine for example, is full of corrupt fake assholes who pretty much only get in politics to get rich. I've personally met several politicians in my country, ranging from governor to senators and others. They all tell the most horrible fucked up corruption stories. It's really depressing over here too.

[darkrider2]

*sigh* the OP was mostly talking about the expenditures we put towards our military. Although his topic title needs a rewrite to reflect that, it seems most of us have assumed that taking out from the military budget means we disassemble all our hardware and retire every soldier on the spot. This is not the case and many of you are making drastic oversimplifications.

Consider this. As single military fighter jet costs upwards of millions of dollars to construct, a tank costs less but is still a massive chunk of change, and the cost of building a warship dwarfs both of those. If you stopped construction we would still maintain the largest military force in the world for years to come, and save a whole shitton of money in the process.

Although considering we've been a military country since WWII, stopping production might cause a loss of jobs, so, there's either two ways I can see this going, build more military hardware at a faster rate, pumping up construction jobs, the military becomes more costly to maintain, until eventually we reach the point where the military is all of our budget and the countries economy implodes.

OR

Detract from all military spending that is not absolutely essential, put it into research, education, infrastructure. Each one of these areas creates jobs (infrastructure especially) and helps the countries economy in the long run. How can the country pay its bills until the people can?

[counting]

As someone lived in a small (front line of U.S. colonial empire)"country island", next to China a country with the biggest army in the world. We heard the media praising the greatness of U.S.A. very often.

[Nadaka]

Stopping construction of weapons does not necessarily save money. Technology advances, things get more efficient and reliable. Old equipment can often times require a lot more maintenance to keep in working order compared to something newer.

If you want a cheaper military, take the political motivation for boondoggles away from congress. NASA has the same problems, congress tells them what to spend money on for political purposes instead of letting the experts handle the specifics.

[MonkeyHead]

How has the size (in terms of fighting personel) of the US military changed since the Cold War? The BBC made a big deal about how the UK's armed forces has "shrunk" (changed into a more lightweight, mobile and flexible fighting force - quality over quantity?) to its smallest size since WW2 recently, despite having signifigant commitments overseas.

[Satarus]

I could point out that we do deter war in many parts of the world.  Taiwan is an (de facto) independent state simply because every time China starts saber rattling we roll up with a carrier group for "combat exercises."  Without the US's military presence China would have no reason to hesitate for an invasion.  And why would they?  Who would stop them?  The same can go for any of our other allies.

[Phmcw]

And there is the problem of raw material supply. Once again, without US army, china and Europe's influence would be larger, and therefore their share of resources as well.

You're saying you don't need that much military to defend your ground. That is true, but you don't have 11 aircraft carrier to defend your group. The power to launch a military invasion anywhere in the world nadaka mentioned is almost exclusive to America, and that's what give you the certainty of the access of most of the world resources.

Rest assured that you don't actually spend 20% of your budget entirely in the wind. But... yeah, you should choose to ignore what your country is doing (Europe and china as well, of course, in the limits of their means).

[Soulwynd]

*sigh* the OP was mostly talking about the expenditures we put towards our military.

Oh, I know that, but what I said is part of the problem.

America spends more in their military than the following 17 countries combined. 6 times more than the follow up, China.

Now, it would be insane to say spending on the military doesn't create some sort of economy, it certainly does. Craftsmen get paid, researchers get paid, industries get paid, military personal get paid. But it's not a self-sustaining one, even if you truly went to iraq to steal the oil, you're doing a bad job at getting revenue from it.

I think it would be better spent on things that either increase your quality of life and/or create self-sustaining economies. Research, education, social advancement, infrastructure, transportation, renewable energy, and so many other things.

Imagine how much research a single F22 can fund?

A certain horrible pharma company once claimed a single marketable drug cost $42 million to R&D. A single F22 can fund 3 of those absurd overpriced R&Ds. Oh, and you'd get enough change to well feed ~12000 people for a year.

I mean, it's not my country, but I do think you all could do with a little less expenditure there and still do all that you do and like doing.

[kaijyuu]

I detest how much we spend on the military, personally. I don't think we should outright get rid of it, but certainly downgrade it to at least the same amount that china's putting into theirs.

There's just no real use to it besides trying to police the world, or point our guns at people and take their resources. I don't support either action.

As far as actual defense goes, military build ups are pretty damn hard to hide nowadays so if we feel threatened by someone else we can always build up a large military again.

[counting]

Actually during the highest tension situation in Taiwan strait back at 1995 (very close to shooting war, when China deployed ten's of thousands missiles along the coast). Even when the U.S. military spending is shrinking, and the first golf war is over. The passive presence of carrier groups patrolling alone, did invert the possible Taiwan strait war. It's the aggressive policy toward the recent middle-east war when projecting oversea "land troops" costs major military spending. The records of oversea land operations is not impressive for the U.S. Army. They either end in disasters or withdraw or stand-off after WWII.

[GlyphGryph]

In the past, the only thing that protected the US was our physical isolation from Europe and Asia. In the modern era transportation advancements make it possible for a determined enemy to launch a devastating first strike from anywhere in the world. What would have happened if the Wehrmacht wasn't held back by the English channel and Atlantic?

Is this something you see as a major danger today? Is this something you see requiring a military anywhere near our size and power? Is this something a nuclear deterrent WOULDN'T prevent?

We need to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

In the OP, I explicitly listed this as something we would maintain.

We need to maintain a global strike capability to engage in two new regional conflicts in order to satisfy our treaty obligations. Hint! We can't actually do this right now because we are currently engaged in 3 wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea).

So... we need to do it... but we aren't even doing it anyways? I don't see how that's an argument.

The defense budget is the largest and most successful jobs creation and scientific progress program in the US.

As stated in the OP, the budget wouldn't disappear. It could be used to hire people for other things (after being reduced to a more sustainable level). Maybe, ya'know, productive things.

What we need to do is end our incursion in Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe even broker a final peace in Korea. Take procurement and funding detail decisions out of the hands of congress, removing the political motivation for inefficient and unneeded projects. Congress should set the budget and the military leadership should determine how best to spend it. That could allow the military budget to shrink without compromising actual capabilities. There are other things that could be done, but that alone could provide moderate savings and possibly even increased capabilities.

I agree with all of this in reality, think its a great idea, and is much closer to the positions I actually support, but the whole point of this thread is to deal with a hypothetical super-limited defense industry without any meaningful "military" component. Everyone agrees the way things are handled is pretty shit, but thats not really the point of this thread.

Note: I am a defense contractor, my livelihood depends on the military, but I have held these opinions since before that.

But none of your points have actually justified, in any way, the cost of the Military, even assuming a military that was far far far more efficient.

Phmcw, you've been the only one to provide any actual justifications for the military so far, so lets hope we get a few more people trying to continue along on that track...

The power to launch a military invasion anywhere in the world nadaka mentioned is almost exclusive to America, and that's what give you the certainty of the access of most of the world resources.

Are we actually better off having this, though? Are we better off enough to justify the costs? While the military certainly provides jobs and economic motivation, every study I've seen seems to demonstrate that infrastructure and research spending provides more of both. And I'd argue there are additional costs, as well - that we would be in a better off situation, economically, if we weren't so busy securing, say, easy access to oil, and instead spending the chunk of the military budget that is spent on that researching alternatives. Obviously, real numbers on this front are going to be exceptionally hard to come by, but attempts would be appreciated as well. I certainly don't have any (though I will look), but it seems obvious on the face that spending the military budget on things that are likely to directly result in wealth increases, like civil research and infrastructure and a host of other things, would have greater returns than our military costs.

Also, what would you feel about cutting back the army and airforce, but maintaining large chunks of the navy (which seems to be one of the more cost effective branches in terms of exerting influence)

[Strife26]

Full disclosure: I'm Strife26, and as such am posting this from a DoD computer, while being paid a penny every 15 seconds by the US government, and just after eating a meal prepared by a contractor for the US government.



In general, I'd say that GlyphGryph is recommending that the US draw itself down from being a hyper-power to just super or normal status.

Historically, the US always draws out armed services down all to heck after every completed war (isolationism is part of our political culture). Our shift to interventionism and the world's policeman role. Do we want this role?

On one hand, it's certainly a serious drain on our resources. On the other hand, without a ready military, we lose a lot of our control over the world stage. Right now, there *can't* be a conventional world war three. The US/NATO would kick everyone's ass front-ways and back ways.

If we draw ourselves down, what then? Protecting ourselves isn't really all that tough. We'd need to keep full-time military forces of course. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing but respect for the National Guard, and they're certainly high up in the running for WHAT STRIFE SHOULD DO AFTER HIS ENLISTMENT IS UP, but they're certainly a step below regular army troops (generally, exceptions exist, especially as regular army troops are certainly a step and a half below troops who have actually been deployed). Call it forces draw down to the extent needed for internal security.

Basically, it forces us into an isolationist mindset. Right now, that's not that big of a deal. But what about in a ten years? China's only going to get bigger, you know. At the moment, whenever China and Tiawan have another little tiff, we can park a warship or two between them (the united states has more aircraft carriers than everyone else combined). Basically, I contend that without the presence of the US Hyper-power block, there's nothing to stop the world from going crazy again. It's a lot easier to keep a standing Army than it is to try to build it again (see WWI, II, Korea, Vietnam, most wars).

Some drawdown is certainly expected and welcome. We're finishing up in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite what anyone says.

However, as Nadaka said, a hell of a lot of the United States is directly based on defense spending. Exactly how we could change that, I'm not sure, although his idea of trying to depoliticize it certainly sounds good.

I would like to note that, in any case, abandoning S Korea isn't a good idea, nor is trying to depend on nuclear deterrent for defense of the homeland, or anything other than deterring nukes.

9 new posts!

Counting: counter example: Desert Storm. Which I'd contend is exactly the sort of force that America needs to maintain. There'll always be naked aggression in the world, and therefore the world as a whole needs an army to stop it, can one trust the UN to field troops?

Kaijyuu: Not really. Building up an army is a very very difficult thing, imagine a demilitarized US trying to remilitarize. How long do you think it'd take Congress to reauthorize funds, for example? Then you've got to dust off equipment, which requires all sorts of new parts (the Abrams, for example is *not* a girl who does well when you let her sit for very long, as I keenly know). Then if the core of the army is gone, you need to replace it. Turning civies into good soldiers isn't instant.

[Impending Doom]

At least from what I understand, the US has to spend ridiculous amounts of money on its military because we're still trying to fight wars the same way they've been fought for centuries: with mass deployments of troops and materiel and overwhelming brute force. History has proven several times (Frank D. Merril and the SAS in the Malayan emergency spring to mind) that smaller numbers of more highly trained, better equipped soldiers is the better (and presumably cheaper) way to go.

[kaijyuu]

Kaijyuu: Not really. Building up an army is a very very difficult thing, imagine a demilitarized US trying to remilitarize. How long do you think it'd take Congress to reauthorize funds, for example? Then you've got to dust off equipment, which requires all sorts of new parts (the Abrams, for example is *not* a girl who does well when you let her sit for very long, as I keenly know). Then if the core of the army is gone, you need to replace it. Turning civies into good soldiers isn't instant.

While true, certainly we could at least match the speed of the buildup of the country or countries we feel threatened by.

And besides, I didn't say completely get rid of it. Match whoever we're suspicious might turn hostile in the future. Maybe even stay #1, but not by as large a margin as we are now.