I think interest on the debt is over $300B now actually.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with you wanting to compare DoD’s budget with other discretionary spending in an attempt to make it’s 16% share of the budget appear bigger by making it 50% of a sub component of the budget.
In any other context, 16% of something would be “relatively small in comparison.” You chose to make DoD 50% of something else to make it appear larger. DoD’s peacetime budgets in the 1950% were at times over 60% of the federal budget, so in my opinion, 16% is relatively small. Needless to say, if you don’t think much of DoD, 16% is way to much.
Death squads. That is exactly the plan I had in mind. How did you know that!!!
Hyperbole and ax grinding doesn’t help your arguments.
Almost every professional that I discuss the federal budget with is concerned that mandatory programs are unsustainable, and will soon be 100% of the budget if unchecked. I’m surprised this is news to you. Perhaps this will help you understand. :smack::smack::smack:
Why is this multi billion dollar program being part of the budget happenstance? It’s a progressive program, it’s not just a holding account for each specific person. Why is this being in the budget such as issue?
“Sub component”? I reference the totality of discretionary spending, and you deride that as a “sub-component”?? Not even “component”, but “sub-component.” Who’s being hyperbolic?
And to give you a quick lesson in arithmetic and/or hyperbole, mandatory spending, no matter how huge, is not going to exceed 100% of the budget. :smack: Even if only 1 penny is spent on the military, $100 quadrillion ÷ ($100 quadrillion + $0.01) is less than one. Yes, sustainability of these programs is an issue but {SPOILER Alert} wasting Billions on defense does not ease the fiscal burden.
A replacement for SocSec could have been set up at the state level, via a private organization, or various massive tax incentives, any of which would “take it off the books.” Yes, its particular structure makes this unlikely but it is disingenuous to use the specifics of this redistribution program to declare a $trillion and half of simple transfer payments “on the books” just so you can pretend to dwarf military spending.
Let me point out that spifflog and I agree that military spending is at least $800 billion when veteran’s benefits are included, and haven’t addressed whether the money is well spent or not. We’re just quibbling over what denominator to pick when depicting this whopping $800,000,000,000.00 sum. We’re putting the emphasis on semantic trivia.
But don’t jblame just septimus and spifflog ! It’s the same way on all the blogs and talk shows, and probably in the halls of Congress. It’s as though there’s no common language, as if the U.S.A. is forced to relive Genesis 11 where God struck the people of Babel so that they could no longer communicate with each other!
It troubles me that veterans benefits fall under discretionary spending. If we ask people to stand in harm’s way, how well they are subsequently compensated for that ought to be a mandatory expense, not a whim of Congress.
Better question is why do these other NATO countries spend so little and cry to the US to help them.
If the US never around these NATO countries would have to really step up. Not saying a country like Canada, UK so on need to sped like the US!! But more than the silly money they put into it.
And the way Russia is going now is worse than the 90’s yet the NATO countries have delusion that Russia is okay.
If any thing China is getting softer and Russia is getting more cold war like.
If these NATO countries spend more money the US could spend less.
Yet Russia is quite a bit worse off in 2017 than the USSR was in 1990. It’s military budget is a fraction of what it once was. While it is the largest in Europe, it is still not much more than a quarter of that of all the European NATO countries ( i.e. excluding the United States ). Add in the U.S. which outbulks it by almost 10-1 ( ~$611 billion to ~$69 billion )and the discrepancy is even more stark. Indeed, questions of effectiveness aside, Russia’s military budget is only slightly larger than Saudi Arabia’s.
People seem to have this tendency to see Russia as the same looming 800 lb gorilla the USSR once was. But nuclear arms aside, where Russia has a large legacy collection, Russia today is nowhere near as threatening.
I work for the military industrial complex, and here’s what I’ve heard through the grapevine (e.g bored co-workers).
The United States has a large enough military presence, such that in the event of a war between the U.S and the rest of the world the U.S would stand a fighting chance.
Anyone with actual military knowledge can feel free to clear this up.
The rest of the world almost certainly lacks the military force and power projection capabilities to conquer and occupy the United States through conventional means. (your co-workers are right, sort of)
Likewise, the United States lacks the military force and power projection capabilities to conquer and occupy the rest of the world through conventional means.
Both sides have significant nuclear arsenals that, if put to use, could effectively end the government(s) and much of the modern society / civilization of the other side.
The word I’d use to describe that situation is “stalemate”, although I don’t think such a hypothetical is particularly useful. There is almost no chance that our closest allies are going to team up with our worst enemies to wage a war of conquest / annihilation against us. And we didn’t build a military designed to win such a war. We built one to defend Estonia, and South Korea, and stop Somali pirates, and kill ISIS, and shoot down North Korean ballistic missiles, and deter Assad from gassing the residents of Aleppo, etc.
Well, the assertion is pretty much meaningless to be honest, so I doubt many ‘with actual military knowledge’ would do more than roll their eyes. You’d have to give it some context and even then it would have to have so many caveats and conditions that the answer would be a convoluted mess. For instance, conventional or nuclear? Defensive or in a US war of conquest? Literally against the whole world or just fighting alone?
The thing is, the US is NEVER alone…one of our hallmarks is the various alliances we are in. Even if our allies are merely letting us stage or base out of their territories it’s a huge advantage. But the US military can’t single handedly defeat the entire world unless you use magic to get all our troops and equipment home and then propose some sort of defense of our shores Red Dawn III scenario…in which case it wouldn’t be the military conquest we’d be worried about (assuming we aren’t going to touch nukes) but the fact that our economy cratered (and most likely so did the rest of the worlds as well).
The grapevine is arguing against the DOD’s statements about it’s strategy since the end of the Cold War.
With the end of the Cold War we transitioned from being able to fight World War III on short notice against a superpower to a lower capability. The shift was to a focus on maintaining forces able to fight and win two simultaneous major regional contingencies (MRCs) in conjunction with our regional partners. That’s not the whole world. It involves allies on our side. The theory was that you didn’t have to decide to effectively cede the capability of fighting for other national interests while that war is ongoing.
Arguably we’d drifted down to the point where they second wasn’t such a sure thing. In 2012 we moved to one MRC with enough to have a strong force for a second MRC strategy. That second MRC in theory would have enough forces left to deter any possible aggression by making the conflict risky and costly for an opponent. Ideally that second MRC force could delay long enough to finish the first and transition forces - win one then the other back to back instead of at the same time. Again that’s in conjunction with our partners not having those partners being part of the World vs the US scenario.
Storyabout the shift away from the two simultaneous MRC model.
If it came down to US air force vs China air force the US may win. If it came down to US army vs China army than China would win the same with North Korea.
North Korea and China have very large army with North Korea having the largest number of people in army than any country in the world. Take away the US air force there would be no way the US would win war with North Korea or China.
Russia will never try to take over the US as they don’t have the means to do so or will. But Russia is going back to old school thought of USSR days of like to grab countries close to Russia under Russia control. And Russia to day is supporting more proxy countries and anti-western rhetoric. And Russia is striking down human rights in Russia and putting people in Jail that are anti-Putin.
Russia is rolling out new stealth fighters and bombers. Russia is also very good at fighting in harsh condition in Russia.
What worries me more not Russia going to war with US, but Russia making too many land grabs and the UN and US have to go in and fight along the borders to save those countries. It would be war of hell.
If the US tried to bomb Moscow or anywhere too far in Russia it could turn into big war. Where Russia is not happy fighting war at the borders but trying to strike the US main land if the US gone too far into Russia. Where by Russia turning its subs, ships and planes and bombers on US main land. The US would increase the same response that could than escalate to using nukes.
If they are just fighting by the border it may not escalate to using nukes or trying to strike main land.
The US army is also not equipped to fight war on land in Russia where Russia army is best in that area. The Russian navy is not as good as the US navy so would lose out there.
[QUOTE=sweat209]
If it came down to US air force vs China air force the US may win. If it came down to US army vs China army than China would win the same with North Korea.
[/QUOTE]
Depends…are we talking about fighting in China (i.e. a US invasion) or somewhere else? The only reason that China might ‘win’ would be if we were talking about operating over their air space…and a ‘win’ would probably mean much of their air force destroyed, while the US would lose only theater forces. North Korea would have zero chance of fending off a US attack.
Horseshit. The US ground forces are every bit more advanced over China and certainly North Korea as the Air Force is. Again, if we are talking a ground invasion of mainland China by the US then, sure…the US would lose that (it would be insane to even try). But in other scenarios (say, an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China, or a conventional war in Korea where China attempts to support it’s NK allies) it would be completely different. I don’t know where people get the impression that China is this great military power…frankly, much of their equipment is dated, their training is a joke by and large, and their doctrine sucks. They currently have no joint forces capabilities, with every branch being isolated from the other wrt coordination, and their command structure and command personnel are horrible (most are appointed because of their CCP affiliation and faction standing, not any sort of military training…just like their soldiers spend about 40% of their training time on communist doctrines, not military training). They haven’t deployed to actually fight anyone since…well, since the Tiananmen Square massacre, and that was a total lashup. As for North Korea, they are even worse off wrt all of these things. Then you couple that with the fact that China and NK never do joint training…that stuff that the US and it’s allied do literally every year.
Russia is developing some stealth capabilities, and their newest fighters aren’t bad…they are great dog fighters, for instance (much better than the F-35 one on one and head t head). But they lack the modern communications and distributed network capabilities…basically, they are building a fighter to fight like they did in the 90’s. They also have a pretty small budget, most of which goes to maintaining their old crap, which they have a lot of.
Where do you get this stuff? The US Army is orders of magnitude more capable than Russia’s ground forces. I don’t know where you are getting your information about US verse these other countries ground forces capabilities, but it’s simply wrong. And this doesn’t even get into our allies in Europea (or Asia) and THEIR capabilities. Russia would have no chance in a ground war against the US and its allies in Europe, assuming the US would be willing to actually fight and that it stayed conventional. Nuclear and everybody loses, especially the Europeans.
Wow! I’n rather glad that this gentleman wasn’t President instead of FDR back in 1941. I would have hated to have had to learn Japanese (or maybe German).
“Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven! But whoever keeps them and teaches others to do the same will be great in the kingdom of heaven.”
From the Torah
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”
Also
“And I will give you peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.”
Hmm God said defend your self
“neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour.”
Also said dont just stand there offering your cheeks while you watch your neighbor be killed
And no the commandment does not say “Though shalt not kill” it says You will not make murder.
Big difference.
Yes, sustainability of these programs is an issue but {SPOILER Alert} wasting Billions on defense does not ease the fiscal burden.