A Defense Budget Cut We Can All Agree On

You think the British are going to war anytime soon?
Originally Posted by WTF

I think we have been at war, alongside our allies, for many years.

But I accept that the British have become enfeebled.

WTF and others cannot understand the simple idea that we can either spend money or we can spend lives. I guess they prefer to spend lives. It is obvious that they didn't serve and have no dog in this debate. They go to some neutral corner and lick their own balls. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are the typical Tea Nutter. You want to reduce the deficit and yet you do not want to touch the biggest outlay in government, DEFENSE.

How about we not pay veterans benifits , afterall they volunteer to serve according to you guys. They do not do it for the money or benefits. That would be a huge cut in the deficit. You game for that. Do you think as many would volunteer?

BTW, I never have gotten paid for volunteering to serve in food lines...

I think we have been at war, alongside our allies, for many years.

But I accept that the British have become enfeebled. Originally Posted by essence

My point was that they could no longer afford to police the world. Especially without compensation.

That is what our righties are having trouble comprehending.

Empires are expensive to maintain.

WTF, your name says it all. You always miss what is going on around you.

I truly have no idea at all what you are babbling about. Why is it that some folks on here take any comment they disagree with--any comment the don't understand--and try to respond to it by saying "Liberal" as loudly as they can? First, as if everyone who disagrees with anything they say must be a liberal (not true), and as if "liberal" is a code word for "evil and untrue (also untrue). Originally Posted by Old-T

I am truly not surprised that you truly have no idea. Perhaps you should re-read some of the other comments in the thread, yes, the one's by leftists ( I did not and normally do not use the term liberal). Each and every time the subject of defense spending comes up a number of the leftists proclaim that the US spends far more than our potential adversaries (though never in the more appropriate terms of percent of GDP).

Hence, they are mind readers, because most of the countries they site are extremely secretive, so, despite our efforts at intelligence gathering, it is impossible for mere mortals to know what they are spending.

Again, I do not use the word "liberal", I use the term "leftist" you can ascribe any hidden "coded" meanings you wish, I suppose that makes you somewhat of a mind-reader to.

I am truly not surprised that you truly have no idea. Perhaps you should re-read some of the other comments in the thread, yes, the one's by leftists ( I did not and normally do not use the term liberal). Each and every time the subject of defense spending comes up a number of the leftists proclaim that the US spends far more than our potential adversaries (though never in the more appropriate terms of percent of GDP). Originally Posted by Iaintliein

+1
Woe unto him who necessarily goes to war and yet only aspires to "equal" his foe in combat. Voltaire once remarked, "God is always on the side of the heaviest battalions."

Each and every time the subject of defense spending comes up a number of the leftists proclaim that the US spends far more than our potential adversaries (though never in the more appropriate terms of percent of GDP).


. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Why should we spend according to GDP?

If our GDP drops in half, should we then cut DoD spending in half.

When we go to war, our Defense spending should ramp up, as in WWII. It should be a huge increase in GDP %. That way everybody feels the pain and we will not go to war nilly willy.

Our country has not become bigger to defend. That is the role of the military, not policing the world. Budgeting off GDP is wasteful.

If you had a warehouse that was half full in production, you would spend the exact same to secure it as you would if you ramped up to 100%. Ike warned us but you have not listened.

As he campaigns for reelection, President Obama periodically reminds audiences of his success in terminating the deeply unpopular Iraq War. With fingers crossed for luck, he vows to do the same with the equally unpopular war in Afghanistan. If not exactly a peacemaker, our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president can (with some justification) at least claim credit for being a war-ender.
Yet when it comes to military policy, the Obama administration’s success in shutting down wars conducted in plain sight tells only half the story, and the lesser half at that. More significant has been this president’s enthusiasm for instigating or expanding secret wars, those conducted out of sight and by commandos. . . .
Since 9/11, U.S. Special Operations Command's (USSOCOM) budget has quadrupled. The special operations order of battle has expanded accordingly. At present, there are an estimated 66,000 uniformed and civilian personnel on the rolls, a doubling in size since 2001, and with further growth projected. Yet this expansion had already begun under Obama’s predecessor. His essential contribution has been to broaden the special ops mandate. As one observer put it, the Obama White House let U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) “off the leash.”
As a consequence, USSOCOM assets today go more places and undertake more missions while enjoying greater freedom of action than ever before. After a decade in which Iraq and Afghanistan absorbed the lion’s share of the attention, hitherto neglected swaths of Africa, Asia and Latin America are receiving greater scrutiny. Already operating in dozens of countries around the world – as many as 120 by the end of this year — special operators engage in activities that range from reconnaissance and counterterrorism to humanitarian assistance and “direct action.” The traditional motto of the Army special forces is “De Oppresso Liber” (“To Free the Oppressed”). A more apt slogan for special operations forces as a whole might be “Coming soon to a Third World country near you!”
. . . . Goodbye accountability. Autonomy and accountability exist in inverse proportion to one another. Indulge the former and kiss the latter goodbye. In practice, the only thing the public knows about special ops activities is what the national security apparatus chooses to reveal. Can you rely on those who speak for that apparatus in Washington to tell the truth? No more than you can rely on JPMorgan Chase to manage your money prudently. Granted, out there in the field, most troops will do the right thing most of the time. On occasion, however, even members of an elite force will stray off the straight-and-narrow. (Until just a few weeks ago, most Americans considered White House Secret Service agents part of an elite force.) Americans have a strong inclination to trust the military. Yet as a famous Republican once said: Trust, but verify. There’s no verifying things that remain secret. Unleashing USSOCOM is a recipe for mischief.
Hello imperial presidency. From a president’s point of view, one of the appealing things about special forces is that he can send them wherever he wants to do whatever he directs. There’s no need to ask permission or to explain. Employing USSOCOM as your own private military means never having to say you’re sorry. When President Clinton intervened in Bosnia or Kosovo, when President Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, they at least went on television to clue the rest of us in. . .


http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/obamas_secret_warriors/

Those are some damn good points IB.

Salon is top notch in their coverage.

Another example of an expensive system that technology has already made obsolete. To justify this by saying it could "sneak up" on China to shell coastal installations is ludicrous. Obviously the real intention is to use it in more interdiction, intervention roles like the war on "that we shall not discuss" and propping up islamic revolutions like Egypt.

With the advent of reliable, accurate, lethal over the horizon weapons, some with intercontinental reach the navy needs to concentrate on moving ground forces safely rather than going back to the days of the broadside.

http://www.wtop.com//220/2889410/US-...a-rising-China

Another example of an expensive system that technology has already made obsolete. To justify this by saying it could "sneak up" on China to shell coastal installations is ludicrous. Obviously the real intention is to use it in more interdiction, intervention roles like the war on "that we shall not discuss" and propping up islamic revolutions like Egypt.

With the advent of reliable, accurate, lethal over the horizon weapons, some with intercontinental reach the navy needs to concentrate on moving ground forces safely rather than going back to the days of the broadside.

http://www.wtop.com//220/2889410/US-...a-rising-China Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The rail-gun isn't obsolete -- it is the future. Once it replaces traditional ballistics weapons, it will be less expensive to operate and maintain.

The rail-gun isn't obsolete -- it is the future. Once it replaces traditional ballistics weapons, it will be less expensive to operate and maintain. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Sure, but you don't need a $3B new platform for it. Existing platforms are updated all the time.

The rails may be less expensive to operate and maintain, but far fewer can be built and deployed vs missiles (think eggs/baskets), and the range will never be as long as a missile's.

Do you really want to compare World War II spending to modern day war preparation spending? Let me remind you of a few differences; when the US got into World War II (December, 1941) the Germans and the Japanese had superior aircraft, superior tanks, and experienced soldiers (two years of war for the Germans and seven years in Manchuria/China for the Japanese). The Japanese had a bigger, more modern fleet even before Pearl Harbor. The Germans had better submarines and submarine strategy. After Pearl Harbor the US was on defense and we had to take the war to them. All of this costs money, lots of money. That was your spending on World War II that required industry shut down most civillian applications. This also required massive government spending that had to be paid for with higher taxes. Of course the typical worker who didn't go to war was working enormous numbers of hours of overtime and the hourly wages had gone up to attract needed workers. The typical worker was making some big bucks.

What you missed (again) was the proposition that military spending prior to World War II would likely have prevented Pearl Harbor and shortened the war when it came. To repeat myself, if the US had an equal number of aircraft carriers to the Japanese I don't think Yamamoto would have taken the change.

For the modern day; I would like to see an increase in the Pacific fleet. Our navy is the smallest it has been since prior to World War II. A 3 billion dollar destroyer is great but 2 destroyers would be better. Part of the defensive armament of a ship is the crew. When a ship takes a hit the crew fights the fires and flooding. If you eliminate a large portion of the crew then you weaken the ship's ability to fight. As we saw in Oman a destroyer can be destroyed or disabled by a small boat full of explosives. During the Battle of Midway the Japanese bombed the aircraft carrier Yorktown and left it burning. The crew did such a great job fighting the fires that when a second wave of Japanese aircraft attacked they thought they had attacked a second aircraft carrier and the first one had sunk. FYI, this is the 70st anniversary of the Battle of Midway. With modern weapons a naval ship can strike back hard but can take less damage. More ships is more of a deterrent than a few ultra-modern ships.