US military dominance

[Jesus Harold Christ]

Can the US continue its military dominance? The US military budget in nearly half of world's total. Its more than double the EU. Over 11X that of France (number 2).

Can this be maintained? Should it be maintained?

What would be so bad about cutting the amount spent is half? Why not get it down to about 2% of GDP like England or France? Or 1% like most of Europe? This could save us trillions in the coming years. Sure we couldn't get in foolish wars like Iraq on our own, but we would still be able to defend ourselves and engage in wars with our allies.

There many countries that a spend a higher percentage of their GDP on their militaries.

[gonzomax]

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search
for absolute security.
D.D. Eisenhower

[Quartz]

France is #2? Are you sure it isn't the UK or China? It really depends upon the exchange rate, doesn't it? But in terms of power projection and a history thereof, the U.K. with a 2 carrier fleet must be #2. China can project force locally; the U.K can project globally.

BTW I'd dispute that Iraq was a foolish war; I won't dispute that it is a foolish occupation.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

<snip>

As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

cite (bolding mine)

We have already, just in the last few years, seen that both our liberties and the processes enshrined in the US Constitution can be ignored or bypassed with ease by the very people who swore oaths to protect them.

I would like to see less spending on our military, and more on education, infrastructure, and health care. But I'm afraid that the combination of fear, greed, and influence may already be too much to overcome. Bringing military spending down will require years of hard work, constant vigilance, and unflagging attention to what happens in the US Congress.

Directly to the OP: Yes, I think the US can continue it's military dominance easily. We are the most technologically advanced country on the planet, we have an immense supply of both natural resources and people, and we have the will to remain thusly.

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by Quartz

France is #2? Are you sure it isn't the UK or China? It really depends upon the exchange rate, doesn't it? But in terms of power projection and a history thereof, the U.K. with a 2 carrier fleet must be #2. China can project force locally; the U.K can project globally.

Near as I can tell the British were #2 in 2007, the French were #2 in 2008 ( #4 in 2007 ). The numbers of #2-5 are close enough that they are bound the shift a bit relative to each other from year to year, depending on major purchases.

Remember than France has both a slightly larger army and land-based air force than the UK. It also has a slightly larger navy by personnel ( but not ships ). Their master plan also calls for a two-carrier fleet by the way, it's just that only one is currently active.

[Der Trihs]

I don't think it can be maintained, and I don't think it should be. I do think we'll try, though. America is so rabidly militaristic that I expect it to ruin itself under the economic burden of it's grotesquely outsized military. We'll cut social services, let the infrastructure rot, spend ourselves into crippling debt, sacrifice the rest of the country to prop up the military.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I don't think it can be maintained, and I don't think it should be. I do think we'll try, though. America is so rabidly militaristic that I expect it to ruin itself under the economic burden of it's grotesquely outsized military. We'll cut social services, let the infrastructure rot, spend ourselves into crippling debt, sacrifice the rest of the country to prop up the military.

Which what DDE warned us about in his farewell address (that I quoted in my post above). He was a very smart, very compassionate man and I wish that more people paid attention to what he did and said.

[bump]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I don't think it can be maintained, and I don't think it should be. I do think we'll try, though. America is so rabidly militaristic that I expect it to ruin itself under the economic burden of it's grotesquely outsized military. We'll cut social services, let the infrastructure rot, spend ourselves into crippling debt, sacrifice the rest of the country to prop up the military.

Not likely with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid BOTH larger than the defense budget (21% each to 20% for defense), and the population getting older by the day.

It's the old farts that'll ruin us, not the military.

[Simplicio]

Yea. Certainly I support the US having the most powerful military in the world, but we really do seem to be in over-kill territory these days, not so much because of increases in our own spending but in that the rest of the world seems to have stopped spending. Do we really need 11 carriers to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan?

It's hard to come up with a scenario where our full military force would be necessary. You occasionally hear that we need them for some possible future conflict with Russia or China, but the fact is that China isn't going to whip a modern blue water navy out of its 1 billion rear ends. If they start building up their military to the point where they might be able to challenge us, I have no doubt we'll have plenty of time to match their increases and keep our advantage.

[gonzomax]

It is the military men who think twice about wars. Many are against the warring and adventuring that enriches the few at the expense of the country and its prestige. This admin loves the money making art of war. This admin is full of draft dodgers and sunshine patriots,
Check Smedley Butler for instance.
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm War is a cruel and stupid business.

[gonzomax]

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/ Our comparative budget.

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Do we really need 11 carriers to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan?

If was just that, then no. A pre ww2 cruiser navy with amphibs would suffice for most things. We could leave the carriers at port in nice neat rows till they are actually needed.

It's hard to come up with a scenario where our full military force would be necessary. You occasionally hear that we need them for some possible future conflict with Russia or China, but the fact is that China isn't going to whip a modern blue water navy out of its 1 billion rear ends. If they start building up their military to the point where they might be able to challenge us, I have no doubt we'll have plenty of time to match their increases and keep our advantage.

No one is going to build a fleet to contest the USN, their military planners are not idiots. But it boils down to two responses to a military engagement, nuke or conventional. Remove a sizeable amount of fleet tonnage, and all the frigate navies can now expect a fair fight and their admirals start planning war ops 'just in case'.

declan

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/ Our comparative budget.

I liked that part about Russia being our ally...

[Lust4Life]

If the U.S. reduces its armed forces it will lose a lot of its prestige/influence in non military areas but thats liveable.

But over the years America has made a lot of enemies, some through other nations envy,some through U.S. actions and it might be the case that weaker armed forces may tempt some of these countries to try a little payback operating either alone or in concert with each other.

[Lumpy]

The United States is currently in much the same positition that Britain and France were between the world wars: inheritors of the responsibility for maintaning the "world order", but with a much shakier guarantee of being able to afford to. Right now we're the ones pretty much paying for the following:

• deterring China from occupying Taiwan, and being able to militarily threaten the rest of the Pacific rim.
• Deterring the batshit insane North Koreans from devastating South Korea.
• keeping Israel from either being annihilated or having to start a nuclear war in the mideast to defend itself.
• keeping the petroleum of the middle east flowing to the rest of the world.
• Maintaining NATO enough that Russia doesn't regard reconquering eastern Europe as a viable option.

The problem is that empires rarely contract gracefully; there's little room for the US to cut back without leaving the world a much scarier place. It would be wonderful if the EU and the Pacific Rim were more self-sufficient in their security, but that's unlikely to happen. They're mostly sitting back and letting the US pay to police the world; pretty much as we let Europe police the world up until WW2.

[Chronos]

I liked that part about Russia being our ally...

I like it too. It's good to have powerful countries like Russia as allies instead of enemies. Which doesn't change the fact that they may someday become an enemy again, but right this moment, they're not.

Personally, I think that having a military budget that matches, say, the next three biggest-spending nations combined, ought to be more than enough. Especially since, with our technological advantage over most of our potential enemies, I would expect that our spending goes further than theirs. Our current position of spending as much as everyone else in the world combined only makes sense if we're planning on fighting everyone else in the world combined.

[MOIDALIZE]

I think we'll see some cognitive dissonance on the part of the Navy, where they realize that U.S. naval power is pretty much unassailable at this point, yet they'll continue to fight tooth and nail against any reduction in their funding. We've already seen it with the Navy's involvement on the missile defense front (shooting down that space junk earlier this year), and I'm sure they'll try to capitalize on Russia's attempts at reasserting its naval power.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

But over the years America has made a lot of enemies, some through other nations envy,some through U.S. actions and it might be the case that weaker armed forces may tempt some of these countries to try a little payback operating either alone or in concert with each other.

This makes it sound like the choices are between having our current military or no military. I certainly think we should spend enough to ensure that we will over match any likely combination of enemies. But even by that standard, I have trouble believing our current rate of spending is justified.

Originally Posted by Declan

No one is going to build a fleet to contest the USN, their military planners are not idiots. But it boils down to two responses to a military engagement, nuke or conventional. Remove a sizeable amount of fleet tonnage, and all the frigate navies can now expect a fair fight and their admirals start planning war ops 'just in case'.

But how much could we cut back before we got anywhere close to a "fair fight". Even if all the worlds navies, allies and non, came together to duke it out with us, it seems we would match them. I agree we need to keep enough of an edge so that its clear will out match our enemies, but at some point, I think its OK to say that our edge is big enough that we really don't need to continue spending at such huge levels.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

* deterring China from occupying Taiwan, and being able to militarily threaten the rest of the Pacific rim.
* Deterring the batshit insane North Koreans from devastating South Korea.
* keeping Israel from either being annihilated or having to start a nuclear war in the mideast to defend itself.
* keeping the petroleum of the middle east flowing to the rest of the world.
* Maintaining NATO enough that Russia doesn't regard reconquering eastern Europe as a viable option.

My understanding is that the domestic militaries of Taiwan and S. Korea are more or less able to fend off any likely invasion from their unruly neighbors. Israel certainly seems capable of defending itself. I don't really see how our military is helping oil get out of the ME, and the military spending of the US could be cut back a large amount and still easily dwarf that of Russia, not even accounting for the spending by the other NATO countries.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by bump

Not likely with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid BOTH larger than the defense budget (21% each to 20% for defense), and the population getting older by the day.

It's the old farts that'll ruin us, not the military.

The medicare money goes back into the economy. Doctors, nurses and many others get paid through it. Jobs are created and taxes paid. Hospitals ,clinics, pharmacists and drug companies get fat off it.
Blowing up 3rd world countries is a crappy waste of money,power and prestige.

[tim314]

Given how drastically the U.S. outspends everyone else, I'd think we could maintain our military dominance even with pretty substantial budget cuts. The reason these don't happen is political (i.e., politicians not wanting to seem "weak on defense"). If we can still easily have the world's strongest military, while also freeing up billions of dollars to spend on other priorities (whether that means social programs, or reducing the national debt, or tax relief, or whatever people think is important) then why shouldn't we?

As far as whether maintaining our "military dominance" is even important, I guess it depends how you define military dominance. If you mean "is it necessary for us to keep spending nearly as much as the whole rest of the world combined?", I'd say the answer is a resounding no. U.S. military spending is currently about 50% of the worldwide total, and NATO as a whole is about 70% (according to wikipedia, at any rate). Even if we cut our military spending by 1/5, we'd still be spending about twice as much as the rest of NATO, and NATO as a whole would be outspending the world by a ratio of 2:1. If that's not enough to maintain the security of NATO members, they must not be spending their money very wisely.

Even if we merely matched the contributions of the rest of NATO (reducing our military spending to about 40% of the current level), NATO would still be outspending the rest of the world by a ratio of 4:3.

I'm not saying we necessarily should cut it that much (for one thing, I imagine making that big a spending cut all at once could screw up the economy even worse than it's already screwed up), but at the very least it seems clear that we're spending way more than we need to just to maintain our national security.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

The medicare money goes back into the economy. Doctors, nurses and many others get paid through it. Jobs are created and taxes paid. Hospitals ,clinics, pharmacists and drug companies get fat off it.
Blowing up 3rd world countries is a crappy waste of money,power and prestige.

Most military spending goes into the US economy as well, though. Soldiers are paid, tanks are built on US assembly lines, etc. Which I expect is one of the reasons for our current overspending, lots of voters jobs depend on money from the DoD.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

We need to really look at ourselves in the mirror and see if us maintaining expensive facilities all over the globe is something that we should do. Those should be used for diplomacy and not necessarily just the military. Didn't we use culture and jazz music to show the good side of us worldwide? Shouldn't we be more concerned about behaving like Americans should in foreign countries to show people in other countries how we act when we're not at home?

I think there's going to be a HUGE row over this exact matter. I'd love to see no military, but I realize that it's not realistic to just get rid of it overnight (although free market thought would dictate that we wouldn't be raw meat left to the wolves, no?).

One side seems to see the military (as it currently is) as a luxury. The other side sees is as necessary as air.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by bump

Not likely with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid BOTH larger than the defense budget (21% each to 20% for defense), and the population getting older by the day.

It's the old farts that'll ruin us, not the military.

Not the same thing. First, besides what gonzomax pointed out, Medicare/Medicaid contributes to the economy in more than just money spent. Healthier people work better and harder than sick ones, and government medical care is less expensive. And Social Security is necessary to keep people from falling into scrounging-in-garbage-for-food levels of poverty. Our outsized military is mostly waste - no one is going to invade an ICBM armed country - and a terrible contributor to the economy even in the sense of "at least the money is spent here" way.

[tim314]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Most military spending goes into the US economy as well, though. Soldiers are paid, tanks are built on US assembly lines, etc. Which I expect is one of the reasons for our current overspending, lots of voters jobs depend on money from the DoD.

Yeah, but the difference is that if you made a major cut in medicare, the health of Americans would suffer, whereas it's not so clear that a major cut in our defense budget would cause our national security to suffer. The point is, with defense we may be spending more than we need to achieve the goal.

It seems to me that spending money on practically anything generates jobs, in the sense that you have to pay people to do the work. Just because the military is currently paying a lot of people to do jobs doesn't mean they're all being paid to do the right jobs (in terms of what benefits our country).

[gonzomax]

All medicare money stays here. Halliburton and the other was companies move their headquarters abroad to avoid taxes. The spend billions in Iraq which has a secondary impact here. Someone builds the bombs ,it is true. But they are procuring more and more abroad to cut costs and increase profits. They get huge tax breaks which enrich only them. All the material. metals and plastics.etc is wasted. Gone from the economy and blown up. Then they are killing people and sometimes getting killed. Did I mention how often they get caught stealing from us and lying. It is pathetic.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

If the U.S. reduces its armed forces it will lose a lot of its prestige/influence in non military areas but thats liveable.

I'm not sure about that. It might gain the respect of some others for such an action, but besides that, I think a lot of US prestige and influence is cultural and economic, not military. The US is the largest population by far in the Anglosphere, as such it will always have the biggest influence there, and thus also globally. And the US has not been threatening any Anglosphere countries for at least a century, so it's not fear of military there.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

It is the military men who think twice about wars. .

This is a very common belief, but IMHO, it's simply not true. In my experience, people in the service are more hawkish - on the average - than people who are not.

France is #2? Are you sure it isn't the UK or China? It really depends upon the exchange rate, doesn't it? But in terms of power projection and a history thereof, the U.K. with a 2 carrier fleet must be #2. China can project force locally; the U.K can project globally.

All three nations have ICBMs. When it comes right down to it, they can project all the power you'd ever need.

But that said, what does have a 2-carrier fleet have to do with necessarily spending more money? China may not have a carrier fleet, but they have land access to plenty of enemies to use their army against.

[Lust4Life]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I like it too. It's good to have powerful countries like Russia as allies instead of enemies. Which doesn't change the fact that they may someday become an enemy again, but right this moment, they're not.

Russia is NOT your friend and does not consider itself to be your friend.
Though it is now operating from an extreme right/nationalist viewpoint rather the a communist one it still considers the U.S. and its N.A.T.O. allies the biggest obstacle to its expansionist/imperialist ambitions.

I am frankly amazed that somehow you believe differently.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

Russia is NOT your friend and does not consider itself to be your friend.
Though it is now operating from an extreme right/nationalist viewpoint rather the a communist one it still considers the U.S. and its N.A.T.O. allies the biggest obstacle to its expansionist/imperialist ambitions.

I am frankly amazed that somehow you believe differently.

Yeah, Russia is not our ally, but at least we don't have them as a direct enemy anymore, either. They're more like a "person of interest" that we have to keep a sharp eye on.

I think some of you may be overlooking some of the costs involved with maintaining our military superiority (whether or not we need to keep that superiority is another argument). It isn't just "buying stuff" or Halliburton contracts.

There is a ton of money that goes into R&D for the advancement of military vehicles and weapons systems. The reason of course is that if we don't continue to push the envelope of these technologies and stay a step ahead of everyone else, that dominance factor we're discussing shrinks to unacceptable levels.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/ Our comparative budget.

I hate, hate, hate these comparisons between military spending and federal outlays for education.

The federal government doesn't fund education. Local governments do. Your income tax bill doesn't support your local schools, your property tax bill does. If they really wanted to compare the military budget with the education budget they'd have to include state and local funding for education along with federal funding. For fairness, they could add in state and local funding for the military (ie the national guards). Then we'd get a true comparison of how much we spend on both.

That video is deliberately misleading.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

Russia is NOT your friend and does not consider itself to be your friend.
Though it is now operating from an extreme right/nationalist viewpoint rather the a communist one it still considers the U.S. and its N.A.T.O. allies the biggest obstacle to its expansionist/imperialist ambitions.

I am frankly amazed that somehow you believe differently.

The Russians are incapable of being anyone's "friends." At the very most, they can be the enemy of your enemy; never anything more. Historically they are expansionist and have had an affinity for repressive government. Anyone who trusts the Russians is making a very bad mistake.

[Sinaijon]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Not the same thing. First, besides what gonzomax pointed out, Medicare/Medicaid contributes to the economy in more than just money spent. Healthier people work better and harder than sick ones, and government medical care is less expensive. And Social Security is necessary to keep people from falling into scrounging-in-garbage-for-food levels of poverty. Our outsized military is mostly waste - no one is going to invade an ICBM armed country - and a terrible contributor to the economy even in the sense of "at least the money is spent here" way.

Every one of those arguments applies for military spending. How many people has the GI bill put through college? How many people do companies like Honeywell, Raytheon, and Boeing employ?

Do you think we buy our ICBMs, our jets, our air craft carriers, our soldiers, et al from China or something?

Besides, our military is the economic grease in the world. International shipping of goods and petroleum would be a completely different story without our navy.

[tim314]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

I hate, hate, hate these comparisons between military spending and federal outlays for education.

The federal government doesn't fund education. Local governments do. Your income tax bill doesn't support your local schools, your property tax bill does. If they really wanted to compare the military budget with the education budget they'd have to include state and local funding for education along with federal funding. For fairness, they could add in state and local funding for the military (ie the national guards). Then we'd get a true comparison of how much we spend on both.

That video is deliberately misleading.

It's true it's not a direct comparison of how much our country spends on education vs. how much we spend on the military.

But it is a comparison of how much the federal government is spending to improve education vs. how much it's spending on the military. So for someone like me who feels that too many of our school systems are underfunded, it makes me think "Man, we could fix that problem by diverting some federal money that's currently going to the military, while still keeping our military far stronger than anyone else's." I think that's a decent point, and one the video makes fairly well.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

My understanding is that the domestic militaries of Taiwan and S. Korea are more or less able to fend off any likely invasion from their unruly neighbors. Israel certainly seems capable of defending itself. I don't really see how our military is helping oil get out of the ME, and the military spending of the US could be cut back a large amount and still easily dwarf that of Russia, not even accounting for the spending by the other NATO countries.

The lion's share of boot-on-the-ground force might be born by South Korea or Taiwan, but it is the strategic backing of the US that deters attack. Without that, the worst that would happen to North Korea or China is that their attacks wouldn't succeed. US backing makes it virtually certain to fail and insanely risky to even try. Regarding Israel, the US currently pays Egypt billions of dollars a year in "aid" which is basically a bribe not to reneg on the peace agreement with Israel. Again, it is US strategic backing that prevents any "worth a try" thoughts on those considering direct military moves. The US Navy almost certainly guarantees that the Strait of Hormuz stays open to international shipping. And again, the point isn't that regional powers couldn't win a confrontation, it's that the guarantee of overwhelming US military superiority prevents armed conflict to begin with.

[Chronos]

Russia is NOT your friend and does not consider itself to be your friend.

I never said that Russia is our friend. She's not. But there's a difference between a friend and an ally, and also a difference between a potential enemy and an actual current enemy.

And even granting that the US military is the primary force keeping problematic nations from acting up, we could match every single one of those problematic nations dollar for dollar, and still spend considerably less than we do now. That would be enough for us to mirror deployments of personnel and material everywhere in the world to be ready at the drop of a hat for whatever they might try, and then if any of them were foolish enough to try anything, we could re-deploy forces from everywhere else to bring to bear, as well. Even in a worst-case scenario where they all colluded to start trouble at once, we'd still be evenly matched, and we'd also still be able to quickly run back up to a military footing like we did at the start of WW II.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

I hate, hate, hate these comparisons between military spending and federal outlays for education.

The federal government doesn't fund education. Local governments do. Your income tax bill doesn't support your local schools, your property tax bill does. If they really wanted to compare the military budget with the education budget they'd have to include state and local funding for education along with federal funding. For fairness, they could add in state and local funding for the military (ie the national guards). Then we'd get a true comparison of how much we spend on both.

That video is deliberately misleading.

Compare it to other countries. You can not bitch about that part.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Halliburton and the other was companies move their headquarters abroad to avoid taxes.

1. Halliburtion is primarily an oil and natual gas company.
2. Halliburton's main headquarters are in Houston.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Sinaijon

Every one of those arguments applies for military spending. How many people has the GI bill put through college? How many people do companies like Honeywell, Raytheon, and Boeing employ?

Do you think we buy our ICBMs, our jets, our air craft carriers, our soldiers, et al from China or something?

That doesn't change the fact that it's less beneficial for the economy than civilian spending, nor that all those soldiers aren't doing productive work.

Originally Posted by Sinaijon

Besides, our military is the economic grease in the world. International shipping of goods and petroleum would be a completely different story without our navy.

Yeah, right. The world survived without us playing Empire; it'll survive when we collapse.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Yeah, right. The world survived without us playing Empire; it'll survive when we collapse.

Before we played Empire, it was the British playing Empire. Yes, the world will "survive" in the long term; but 30-40 years of armed chaos until the losers are all dead and the survivors have established a new metastable order is doing it the hard way.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by bump

Not likely with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid BOTH larger than the defense budget (21% each to 20% for defense), and the population getting older by the day.

It's the old farts that'll ruin us, not the military.

Don't talk that way about our emergency food supply!

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Most military spending goes into the US economy as well, though. Soldiers are paid, tanks are built on US assembly lines, etc. Which I expect is one of the reasons for our current overspending, lots of voters jobs depend on money from the DoD.

Ah, the old broken window fallacy clearly explained by Frederic Bastiat in the nineteenth century.

[Der Trihs]

A somewhat relevant article

Originally Posted by Boston Globe

A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is "not sustainable," and he must scale back or eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs.

The briefings were prepared by the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body. It contends that the nation's recent financial crisis makes it imperative that the Pentagon and Congress slash some of the nation's most costly and troubled weapons to ensure they can finance the military's most pressing priorities.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

...It would be wonderful if the EU and the Pacific Rim were more self-sufficient in their security, but that's unlikely to happen. They're mostly sitting back and letting the US pay to police the world; pretty much as we let Europe police the world up until WW2.

Originally Posted by Simplicio

This makes it sound like the choices are between having our current military or no military. I certainly think we should spend enough to ensure that we will over match any likely combination of enemies. But even by that standard, I have trouble believing our current rate of spending is justified...

An idea from the peanuts gallery: maybe if "the sheriff of the world" (the expression is not mine) spent less in bullets, his deputies would have to spend more themselves. It's a bit of a vicious circle: you guys spend tons on it and do your best to be the ones leading the charge, so our guys decide they can afford to take some of that budget and move it to education and social services and let's get lots of guys who don't mind cleaning oil spills but not so many who are interested in blazing-gun charges, so your guys decide they need to reinforce things because you can't count on our guys so...

[Nava]

Out of time:
The GI Bill can be described as "a fellowship system which carries the condition that one must be a soldier." Less soldiers -> less people using the GI Bill. It's possible to determine how much money this means and putting it back into fellowships which don't require the recipient to be a soldier. After all, it is perfectly possible to be a good candidate for a PhD while being a lousy one for a commission.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

1. Halliburtion is primarily an oil and natual gas company.
2. Halliburton's main headquarters are in Houston.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258274,00.html Used to be true.