How much does the US spend on the military?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I voted option 1. The military budget needs to be gutted like a fish.

[A18]

And you wonder why you always lose.

[Lunar]

And you wonder why you always lose.

Because every Democrat is like BRTD.

Anyway, I voted "too much" on the military budget but would have voted "too little" if we were just talking about crap related to security.  My dream would be to have the US focus on foreign aid to build up military networks.

[A18]

And you wonder why you always lose.

Because every Democrat is like BRTD.

There are always enough like him for Republicans to point to.

[Alcon]

And you wonder why you always lose.

Because every Democrat is like BRTD.

There are always enough like him for Republicans to point to.

And there are plenty of far-right Republicans, too.

[A18]

Limited government doesn't scare people as much as limited military.

[The Duke]

Given the fact that we are now the sole active exporter of security, with minor help from Britain and Australia and a few others, and we stand guard for allies around the world, like S. Korea and Taiwan, we now have a mission load that exceeds our capacity to carry it out.  We spend too little.

[David S]

Given the fact that we are now the sole active exporter of security, with minor help from Britain and Australia and a few others, and we stand guard for allies around the world, like S. Korea and Taiwan, we now have a mission load that exceeds our capacity to carry it out.  We spend too little.

As far as I know no one is paying us for this service. Also there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that lists "World's Policeman" as one of our duties. Why don't we let the rest of the world defend itself or charge them for the service if they want us to provide it.

I believe in defense but I'm sure we could reduce the cost at least a little without sacrificing our security.

[Trilobyte]

Way to much, and I've posted on this before. People complain about how NASA is wasting its small budget, yet they don't realize America is wasting billions on testing a missile system that is only accurate five times out of eight.

[The Duke]

Given the fact that we are now the sole active exporter of security, with minor help from Britain and Australia and a few others, and we stand guard for allies around the world, like S. Korea and Taiwan, we now have a mission load that exceeds our capacity to carry it out.  We spend too little.

As far as I know no one is paying us for this service. Also there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that lists "World's Policeman" as one of our duties. Why don't we let the rest of the world defend itself or charge them for the service if they want us to provide it.

I believe in defense but I'm sure we could reduce the cost at least a little without sacrificing our security.

So we present Afghans with a bill for services rendered?

The Constitution doesn't impose ANY national security strategy for us to follow, only the manner in which we raise and fund armies and declare war.  The idea that a national security strategy must be explicitly speled out in the Constitution is not cnnected to any legal theory I am aware of.

[Lunar]

Given the fact that we are now the sole active exporter of security, with minor help from Britain and Australia and a few others, and we stand guard for allies around the world, like S. Korea and Taiwan, we now have a mission load that exceeds our capacity to carry it out.  We spend too little.

As far as I know no one is paying us for this service. Also there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that lists "World's Policeman" as one of our duties. Why don't we let the rest of the world defend itself or charge them for the service if they want us to provide it.

I believe in defense but I'm sure we could reduce the cost at least a little without sacrificing our security.

It might be in our interests to make sure war doesn't break out between the Koreas.

[opebo]

Too much.  The large budget creates the incentive and the temptation to engage in senseless wars that usually reduce security.

[phk]

Most of the recent defense budget increases have little to do with fighting terrorists and more to do with providing welfare for politically connected defense contractors.

These weapons makers, with the help of their congressional representatives, have cashed in on the post-9/11 fear.

Simiarly to how food stamp and public housing programs are designed to benefit the poor, the biggest recipients of their welfare are probably the respective large agricultural corporations and housing contractors that profit from them.

The defense budget is rife with weapon systems that are unneeded, perform poorly, or were designed to fight the now defunct Soviet Union.

[opebo]

Most of the recent defense budget increases have little to do with fighting terrorists and more to do with providing welfare for politically connected defense contractors.

These weapons makers, with the help of their congressional representatives, have cashed in on the post-9/11 fear.

Correct as usual phknrocket!  This is just a transfer payment to Bush's (and the GOP's) constituency.  A lot of useless junk purchased for a non-exsistent threat. 

Similarly, the Cold War was largely manufactured by the US:  the USSR was never very strong.

[A18]

Most of the recent defense budget increases have little to do with fighting terrorists and more to do with providing welfare for politically connected defense contractors.

These weapons makers, with the help of their congressional representatives, have cashed in on the post-9/11 fear.

Correct as usual phknrocket!  This is just a transfer payment to Bush's (and the GOP's) constituency.  A lot of useless junk purchased for a non-exsistent threat. 

Similarly, the Cold War was largely manufactured by the US:  the USSR was never very strong.

This from the ing retard who up until August supported the Iraq war.

[opebo]

Most of the recent defense budget increases have little to do with fighting terrorists and more to do with providing welfare for politically connected defense contractors.

These weapons makers, with the help of their congressional representatives, have cashed in on the post-9/11 fear.

Correct as usual phknrocket!  This is just a transfer payment to Bush's (and the GOP's) constituency.  A lot of useless junk purchased for a non-exsistent threat. 

Similarly, the Cold War was largely manufactured by the US:  the USSR was never very strong.

This from the g retard who up until August supported the Iraq war.

Nothing wrong with a colony or two.  But apparently we're worse at it than the British. 

[A18]

Too much.  The large budget creates the incentive and the temptation to engage in senseless wars that usually reduce security.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[opebo]

Too much.  The large budget creates the incentive and the temptation to engage in senseless wars that usually reduce security.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, perhaps things that are not morally wrong can be impractical. 

The main point of my post was to poke fun at the ridiculous Bush administration claim that the war in Iraq is being fought for non-colonial purposes - democracy, freedom, blah blah blah.

[David S]

Given the fact that we are now the sole active exporter of security, with minor help from Britain and Australia and a few others, and we stand guard for allies around the world, like S. Korea and Taiwan, we now have a mission load that exceeds our capacity to carry it out.  We spend too little.

As far as I know no one is paying us for this service. Also there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that lists "World's Policeman" as one of our duties. Why don't we let the rest of the world defend itself or charge them for the service if they want us to provide it.

I believe in defense but I'm sure we could reduce the cost at least a little without sacrificing our security.

So we present Afghans with a bill for services rendered?

The Constitution doesn't impose ANY national security strategy for us to follow, only the manner in which we raise and fund armies and declare war.  The idea that a national security strategy must be explicitly speled out in the Constitution is not cnnected to any legal theory I am aware of.

We have 74000 guys in Germany, 13000 in Italy, 40000 in Japan, and 11000 in The United Kingdom. http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/M05/hst0309.pdf  Is it impossible to reduce those numbers without risking our security? If we are defending those countries why can't they pay for it?

As for Afganistan, if they had any money I'd say yes. Although it might be a bit awkard to ask them to pay for kicking their ass.

[The Duke]

Given the fact that we are now the sole active exporter of security, with minor help from Britain and Australia and a few others, and we stand guard for allies around the world, like S. Korea and Taiwan, we now have a mission load that exceeds our capacity to carry it out.  We spend too little.

As far as I know no one is paying us for this service. Also there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that lists "World's Policeman" as one of our duties. Why don't we let the rest of the world defend itself or charge them for the service if they want us to provide it.

I believe in defense but I'm sure we could reduce the cost at least a little without sacrificing our security.

So we present Afghans with a bill for services rendered?

The Constitution doesn't impose ANY national security strategy for us to follow, only the manner in which we raise and fund armies and declare war.  The idea that a national security strategy must be explicitly speled out in the Constitution is not cnnected to any legal theory I am aware of.

We have 74000 guys in Germany, 13000 in Italy, 40000 in Japan, and 11000 in The United Kingdom. http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/M05/hst0309.pdf  Is it impossible to reduce those numbers without risking our security? If we are defending those countries why can't they pay for it?

As for Afganistan, if they had any money I'd say yes. Although it might be a bit awkard to ask them to pay for kicking their ass.

We are already reducing our presence in Europe significantly, so that portion is really moot now.  Reducing our presence in Japan would reduce our capacity for deterrence towards North Korea and could drive Japan, a critical ally, into the arms of China, a strategic competitor, in a search for a new guarantor of security.  Or, they could re-arm, creating an arms race in Asia between China, Russia, and Japan.

[David S]

Given the fact that we are now the sole active exporter of security, with minor help from Britain and Australia and a few others, and we stand guard for allies around the world, like S. Korea and Taiwan, we now have a mission load that exceeds our capacity to carry it out.  We spend too little.

As far as I know no one is paying us for this service. Also there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that lists "World's Policeman" as one of our duties. Why don't we let the rest of the world defend itself or charge them for the service if they want us to provide it.

I believe in defense but I'm sure we could reduce the cost at least a little without sacrificing our security.

So we present Afghans with a bill for services rendered?

The Constitution doesn't impose ANY national security strategy for us to follow, only the manner in which we raise and fund armies and declare war.  The idea that a national security strategy must be explicitly speled out in the Constitution is not cnnected to any legal theory I am aware of.

We have 74000 guys in Germany, 13000 in Italy, 40000 in Japan, and 11000 in The United Kingdom. http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/M05/hst0309.pdf  Is it impossible to reduce those numbers without risking our security? If we are defending those countries why can't they pay for it?

As for Afganistan, if they had any money I'd say yes. Although it might be a bit awkard to ask them to pay for kicking their ass.

We are already reducing our presence in Europe significantly, so that portion is really moot now.  Reducing our presence in Japan would reduce our capacity for deterrence towards North Korea and could drive Japan, a critical ally, into the arms of China, a strategic competitor, in a search for a new guarantor of security.  Or, they could re-arm, creating an arms race in Asia between China, Russia, and Japan.

I was an engineer in the auto industry for 20 years. During that time the industry came under great pressure from competition. We had to reduce costs to stay in business. Every year management would make new demands for cost reductions and every year all of us would scream "there is nowhere else to make reductions". And yet every year we did make reductions and we did so without sacrificing quality. In business competition forces manufacturers to constantly search for more cost effective ways of doing things. In government that pressure is not there, so government leaders need to force spending cuts if we really want to get our budget under control. No matter what you cut someone will scream. Cut defense and the warhawks will scream. Cut social programs and the Democrats will haul out all their old lines; "mean spirited Republicans", "babies starving", "old people eating dogfood", "dogs eating old people" you name it. My point is that you can make cuts and the world won't come to an end, you just need the will to do it. Otherwise we either raise taxes (yuck) or we run record setting deficits forever. Raising taxes might be appealing to Democrats but no one else. Huge deficits should not be appealing to anyone, conservative or liberal. I vote for cuts, military included.

[Trilobyte]

Given the fact that we are now the sole active exporter of security, with minor help from Britain and Australia and a few others, and we stand guard for allies around the world, like S. Korea and Taiwan, we now have a mission load that exceeds our capacity to carry it out.  We spend too little.

As far as I know no one is paying us for this service. Also there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that lists "World's Policeman" as one of our duties. Why don't we let the rest of the world defend itself or charge them for the service if they want us to provide it.

I believe in defense but I'm sure we could reduce the cost at least a little without sacrificing our security.

So we present Afghans with a bill for services rendered?

The Constitution doesn't impose ANY national security strategy for us to follow, only the manner in which we raise and fund armies and declare war.  The idea that a national security strategy must be explicitly speled out in the Constitution is not cnnected to any legal theory I am aware of.

We have 74000 guys in Germany, 13000 in Italy, 40000 in Japan, and 11000 in The United Kingdom. http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/M05/hst0309.pdf  Is it impossible to reduce those numbers without risking our security? If we are defending those countries why can't they pay for it?

As for Afganistan, if they had any money I'd say yes. Although it might be a bit awkard to ask them to pay for kicking their ass.

We are already reducing our presence in Europe significantly, so that portion is really moot now.  Reducing our presence in Japan would reduce our capacity for deterrence towards North Korea and could drive Japan, a critical ally, into the arms of China, a strategic competitor, in a search for a new guarantor of security.  Or, they could re-arm, creating an arms race in Asia between China, Russia, and Japan.

I was an engineer in the auto industry for 20 years. During that time the industry came under great pressure from competition. We had to reduce costs to stay in business. Every year management would make new demands for cost reductions and every year all of us would scream "there is nowhere else to make reductions". And yet every year we did make reductions and we did so without sacrificing quality. In business competition forces manufacturers to constantly search for more cost effective ways of doing things. In government that pressure is not there, so government leaders need to force spending cuts if we really want to get our budget under control. No matter what you cut someone will scream. Cut defense and the warhawks will scream. Cut social programs and the Democrats will haul out all their old lines; "mean spirited Republicans", "babies starving", "old people eating dogfood", "dogs eating old people" you name it. My point is that you can make cuts and the world won't come to an end, you just need the will to do it. Otherwise we either raise taxes (yuck) or we run record setting deficits forever. Raising taxes might be appealing to Democrats but no one else. Huge deficits should not be appealing to anyone, conservative or liberal. I vote for cuts, military included.

You have some good points, but I want to point out that running government is not the same as running a business. Business are here to make a profit; government is here for the common good of everyone. Don't take the analogy too far.

However, I do agree the military should be cut. It should be the first thing to be cut, and it should get the biggest cut.

[nclib]

Option 1.

Money needs to be taken from the military and used for social programs.

[Nym90]

Option 3, at least for the moment. There are a lot of areas that could be made more efficient, and thus costs cut, but other areas in which too little is spent. We need to redirect money more than anything.

[Wakie]

Do we spend too much?  Well, that depends.  I'd be ok with how much we spend if we were getting value for our dollar.  But there is a ridiculous amount of waste in the military.  We all know how careless government agencies are about wasting money, and the DoD is the worst offender.  They know that no one is going to shoot them down when they ask for more money.  We are well overdue for a modern day Truman Commission.