The U.S Defense budget

Ok I briefly mentioned the enormous amount of money spent by the U.S on Defense. Currently we spend roughly about 650 billion on defense and the budget if it goes unchecked will rise to 708 Billion. The Unites States currently spends more money on defense than all other countries in the world! yes you read that correctly we spend more money on the military than all nations combined! We also currently have more nuclear submarines than all other nations combined.
This past week both Representative Barney Frank and Ron Paul who both night and day in terms of their political stance agreed that the Military budget needs to be cut ASAP. President Obama mentioned in the next year he wants to see if the GOP is true to their word about reducing government spending as he plans to presents some tough proposals to the GOP- many people think one of them is to reduce Department of Defense spending.
Sarah Palin as been quoted as saying that the Obama administration needs to cut govt spending EXCEPT for Defense spending. Now keep in mind the Department of Defense has the biggest budget. Also, the United States has been criticized by the International community for wanting other nations to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons when in reality the U.S is spending more money on their military each year and that the amount they spend is 100 x's more than what other nations are spending. Now those of you who believe that the government needs to cut spending - why not start with the Department with the biggest budget?

I would love to see a $100B reduction and give the money to VA and clean up our military health mess and treat our vetrans right.

We are the best armed for the kind of conflict that no is going to fight anymore. I would spend a $100B of the budget on DRONES too.

I would love to see a $100B reduction and give the money to VA and clean up our military health mess and treat our vetrans right.

We are the best armed for the kind of conflict that no is going to fight anymore. I would spend a $100B of the budget on DRONES too. Originally Posted by catnipdipper

I agreee with you on the Veterans. On your second part are you saying that we don't need billion dollar Stealth planes anymore? Or Apache Helicopters?

Everytime a Democrat is elected they cut the defense budget, then we spend the next 10 years rebuilding the mess that it causes. I remember during the clinton administration not being able to get parts for the Hum Vee's and duece n 1/2's so we had to scavenge one vehicle to the other, to maintain our fleet in the reserves. With a reduced military how are we going to respond to all these emergencies we like to send the military on like the Tsunami for example. You guys talk about all of our advanced weapons, well how do you think we stay advanced, it takes mony and lots of it. You have Mexico and Cuba both buying Sukhoi SU 27 fighters which are the equiv to the F18 Superhornet. You got a 3rd world nation who is our enemy with weapons equal to ours. You guys think that because we stop spending other countrys do, but I assure you Russia and China does not stop its production of military gear top sell to our enemies. You also speak as if our enemies are only going to be from the middle east from now on. China may be our friend right now, but it was only 30 years ago they were our enemy, you cant stop preparing for future conflicts against superpowers because we dont talk bad about each other now. Then the last issue I am going to raise, cuts in military spending always result in base closings and military personnel reductions, always, always, always, we have 10% unemployment now, where are they workers doing to go, under clinton they reduced the military by 40,000 troops, and 79 bases. Do you fully comprehend how many civillian jobs and businesses a military base generates on the base and in the towns outside the base. So you ad 40,000 troops and another 150000 civlillan jobs (and this number is a very low estimaton) thats 190000 more people looking for work on top of the 10% of the population looking, now with 190,000 additional jobless workers, you have to now factor in the costs of unemployment, food stamps, welfare, public assistance and a myriad of other programs that will be forced to provide assistance to people who would be working had the base not closed, you got to look at the big picture.

What I guess I mean is that we did not need the F-22(?) and other weapon systems that are more conventional in nature to fight a cold war type ground war.

Conflicts in the future will be scattered geographically and will call for close air support and a more mobile fighting unit to counteract them.

I love Rangers, Seals, Green Berets, Airborne and the like.

I like drones because they create Fear and that is our only hope as they can outlast us conventionally with an insurgency.

I like Aircraft Carriers, Frigates, and Nuc Subs too.

Gates knows how inefficient the whole process is and he would be better equipped than Rumsfeld was to lead to the future.

In my book Gates can do no wrong and is the best member of the cabinet.

A quick check shows that clintons 79 base closings resulted in 129649 civillian jobs lost that were located on the base and not in the surrounding communities, when Richard Guebar was open, Belton was a growing community, when the base closed an enormous number of jobs were lost and the town has never recovered.

"What I guess I mean is that we did not need the F-22(?) and other weapon systems that are more conventional in nature to fight a cold war type ground war."

While I agree the F-22 is not needed, its not because we dont need the technology nor a pilot in the seat, its because a better aircraft was developed in the f-35 joint stike fighter.

"Conflicts in the future will be scattered geographically and will call for close air support and a more mobile fighting unit to counteract them."

And you know this how, who can know this, is there some crystal ball somewhere that people use to see the future.

"In my book Gates can do no wrong and is the best member of the cabinet."

You mean he is not associated with the evils attached to Bush and Cheney, he's not without knowledge of all the evil plots that they are accused of conspiring.

I was in the Clinton army. Very demoralizing to have inoperable vehicles rotting in motor pools....all the while, the military's mission remained the same.

If somebody wants to cut defense, they'd better offer up a mission that we have decided to scrap as well...or else its just talk.

We could be smarter with how defense money is spent - the procurement system is corrupt, everything from weapons systems to mre's. We could scrap old weapons systems, when the military says they are no longer useful (instead of letting congressional meddling make the decision). We could trim the layering of staff in the Pentagon. Lots of ways to save money....but a decision to just flat cut spending across the board only seems to encourage more of the bad parts of the system.

Here are a few other things that we spend alot of money on...that frankly, we have to: Cruise missiles and smart bombs instead of civilian killing dumb bombs, extensive training to prepare our soldiers for combat, extensive use of simulators (tank, artillery, Humvee, rifle, flight, you name it) to make training safer, R & D, ever changing upgrades in protection gear like body armor, helmets, vehicle armor packages, the list goes on.

I'll give a small example. Every 'x' number of rounds that go through a 4.2" mortar, the gun has to be shipped to Aberdeen and dye tested for cracks. Why? So it doesn't blow up and kill our soldiers. Do the majority of the 'every other country in the world' do this? Absolutely not. The Russians in particular do not value soldiers lives like our military does. Chinese? Not a chance...none of the far eastern nations would go to extraordinary steps to protect soldiers' lives. In fact, when you get right down to it, the only other nations that spend big money to protect personnel are the western ones....and most of them have ceremonial militaries, at best. So, it comes as no surprise to me that we spend so much more than the others do....but it actually is one of the prime responsibilities of our government.

Gates is a Bush appointee, and a native Kansan, I believe. Initially I had high hopes, but I really think he has done a poor job.

I also happen to think Rumsfeld did a poor job. His notion of doing 'more with less'...using more special ops, etc. did not work in Iraq....and its a little unsettling to hear people call for a re-introduction of that strategy again.

Biden's drone strategy? I actually question how cost effective this is...and for some reason, they have actually caused a high number of civilian casualties.

I am convinced that Gates is the smartest, most able, and one of the most human of all historic cabinet appointees. CIA under first Bush I think and ex College President and just very capable I don't care what party he is from.

Sometimes you budget by picking a number. Then you back into it by as you say cutting unecessary expenses and inefficiencies and obsolete systems, politics be damned.

R&D never cut, soldier protections and visual enhancement for targeting etc ok.

Retrenchment of some overseas troops maybe that too and let the other countries pay more for their own defense.

The defense budget is the same size as the interest on the national debt(don't go there in a recession near depression) and it can be shaved down and I will grant you other places too.

I always hear about the broken down vehicles etc but really how many do we have and how many do we need in these changing times? I don't know I am just asking. I know most reconditioning is contracted out and the logistics of back and forth from the battlefield to the U.S. and back again has to be staggering.

I think Gates is trying to centralize and coordinate some purchasing so that the different branches aren't paying different prices for the same tools.

As a Democrat I make no apologies for supporting Robert Gates.

Sometimes I kinda like Lindsay Graham too. Tea Baggerz are gonna get him next time though.

You guys that like guns. How many do you have and of how many varieties? Then realistically how many can you shoot at one time and how many do you really need to defend yourself?

"As a Democrat I make no apologies for supporting Robert Gates."

No need to appologize, no one wants you to, you are entitled to your opinion. I personally dont have a problem with him.

"Retrenchment of some overseas troops maybe that too and let the other countries pay more for their own defense."

I agree we should pull troops back from germany, no one is going to cum crashing over their borders, the problem with just removing them is the impact it will have on the German economy, it would be pretty intensive. Everytime there is serious talk about pulling the troops, the german government comes unglued LOL.

I have no problem with trimming the fat, but not in the way the Dem usually do it. I do agree that a new purchasing program needs to be implemented.

"I always hear about the broken down vehicles etc but really how many do we have and how many do we need in these changing times? I don't know I am just asking. I know most reconditioning is contracted out and the logistics of back and forth from the battlefield to the U.S. and back again has to be staggering."

Well yes it is important, it comes down to division and even squad readiness. The vehicles are assigned to the unit, they travel with the unit, if they are not functional the unit is not fit for deployment, in an emergency situation this could cause a problem, by delaying the available deployment of troops, unfortunately this problem was not limited to just a few units, it was pretty subtantial. Its not like they fly the troops in and throw them some hum vee keys and say take off, there is no moble motorpool that delivers vehicles to the troops, they actually travel with the troops. Also the parts shortages were not just limited to hum vees and transport trucks it invloved armoured vehicles and tanks. Its not like we have an overabundance of vehicles, they have enough to do the job plus a few more to account for battle losses and breakdowns.

"You guys that like guns. How many do you have and of how many varieties? Then realistically how many can you shoot at one time and how many do you really need to defend yourself?"

It all depends on how many people are coming at me.

DD, Can you conceal and get a permit for a Gatling Gun?

A tad off topic but I alway see the blown up trucks and stuff. I also see the poor guys humping along a road in all their gear or riding in a vehicle.

What happened to the Chopper drop with air cover from the Jungle Days? I know patrol is patrol but use a drone and chopper these poor guys in and bring em the gear so they don't carry all that stuff.

I am pretty sure I could not carry all that stuff and be effective these days. Lot lighter (t-shirt) in my time.

I think we all agree there is waste and we could get at it.

My thoughts on what I have seen from Obama administration is that he manages and governs on the University of Chicago training and education.

Gather the data, study it to death, make a decision or set a goal like an accross the board cut and let them justify or defend it. Same on a pull out deadline. Explain to me why not if I have to change it. Sets goals and makes for fierce debate and justifications.

I have worked under Dudes trained at this school so I recognize it when I see it.

"DD, Can you conceal and get a permit for a Gatling Gun?"

Well yes, with the right permits, and full auto weapons stamp you could but it would be extremely uncomfortable and propably not practicle. As for the chopper drop question assume it because of the urban enviroment that would make it difficult to get in and out with a chopper. Besides that the striker assult vehicle helps to cut down on troop losses.

"I always hear about the broken down vehicles etc but really how many do we have and how many do we need in these changing times"

There really aren't 'spare' vehicles. Each unit has a very specific number of vehicles...and if most of them are down due to lack of parts, you are not deployable.

As the regular army gets newer vehicles, the older ones go to the guard....and sometimes old Army equipment goes to the Marines. So for example, the regular Army might have the M1-A2, while the guard is still using the M1-A1. At some point, at the very end of the line, a vehicle is no longer useful to the military. It goes to DRMO (Defense Re-Utilization and Marketing Organization), and gets auctioned off...or it goes to a 'boneyard' where parts can be scavenged off of them. In rare cases, vehicles are outright destroyed, so the parts cannot be used (aircraft). There are also extensive rehab and upgrade programs for aircraft and tanks.

Anyway, when somebody says he had broken down vehicles during the Clinton military, he means that his very specifically allotted vehicles, by MTOE, are broken, and his unit is ineffective. Its not like a 'pool' of vehicles, like alot of government offices have, where you can just pick the Taurus if the Tahoe is broken...each broken vehicle means there is a crew with no ability to train or fight....and a 'vehicle' can mean a truck, a tank, a helicopter, self propelled artillery, etc....not just trucks.

As for your question about how many guns we own and why do we need so many, I could give you the confrontational answer and say "because I have the right to and want to etc. etc". But the reality is guns are like tools and they fits different needs, a shotgun is not to take long shots like a rifle, pistols come in different sizes and sizes so depending on what your wearing you may want to use a different gun. Now many ask why you need guns like the m-16 or m-4 for civillian use. Well history has shown that most sporting rifles evolved from a military rifle. the Ar format now comes in different calibers and is fast becoming a rifle of choice for all types of hunting, light weight, light recoil fast follow up shots make it a very nice hunting rifle. I ask the anti hunting growd what makes one type of gun more dangerous than the other, there are more powerful civilian rifles than the military one?

many of you mentioned some great points, but how does the United States respond to the International community for example let's play the devils advocate if the U.S is telling N.Korea and Iran(just 2 name a couple nations) to put a halt to trying to create nuclear weapons and those 2 nations respond by saying put a halt to you spending more on the military than all other countries in the world combined and we will not continue to search for nukes to protect us from you(United States).
I can understand if the U.S was spending X amount a dollars and the #2 country was just spending slightly less(i.e cold war days) but when the U.S is spending more money on defense than ALL other countries in the world that's really hard to justify. Is it not fair to think that other countries might see the U.S as trying to control the world or spread it's empire? The same report also mention that the U.S has troops or bases in 3/4 of the countries in the world- I mean that is really widespread- no other country including China which has the biggest army based on soldiers has as many bases or troops in other countries.
Someone mention that a Democrat gets in office he cuts defense which means people are out of work- I don't think that's a fair assesment- when Clinton cut spending and closed bases the cold war was over there was no need for a massive build up- we were still by far the strongest nation in the world under clinton.
What about Republican Presidents who cut spending in Education? Do you really want Americans who can't read or write- heck do you want soliders men/women going into the military with an elementary school education???
You still can cut spending without reducing jobs- do we really need to be designing more billion dollar stealth planes? The F-15 fighter is an outdated plane by our standards but it's still superior to anything the Chinese have or the Russians and the F-15 is no longer our top plane- it's been replaced by the F-22 Stealth Raptor.
Also, again to the gentlemen who said if we cut spending we would lose jobs- what if the U.S were to create drone soldiers that could do everything that a human could do and we wanted to employ let's say 15,000 of these "done soldiers" in the military. If those 15,000 could effectively replace 15,000 human soldiers would you complain that it's a bad idea because 15,000 soldiers won't have a job??? Isn't a Predator drone taking a place of a pilot? If they created drone airplanes and let's say hypothetically they were safe- wuld you say scratch the idea because it would mean airline pilots would lose jobs? Something has to give dude.