# It's time to pare down U.S. military spending **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409 "2013-02-15T17:53:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/41 "2013-02-15T22:47:37Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] No one is suicidal enough to do that to a major nuclear power. And even if they were, we could have far less military spending and still crush whomever they were. [/QUOTE] And yet, nations push us all the time. We push back by sending out a carrier or doing a military exercise. Again, your theory only works if we are actually willing to use nuclear weapons to back up our threat. If someone attacks a ship coming to the US with a tanker full of oil, we going to nuke…someone…over that? :dubious: If Iran decides to invade Iraq, or one of it’s other neighbors, are we going to send in the nukes? :dubious: If China decides to put maximum pressure on Taiwan, are we going to nuke China? :dubious: If North Korea decides that we are no longer going to act as a trip wire on the Korean peninsula, are we going to nuke North Korea? :dubious: And on and on. Today, most countries aren’t going to try and do any of that because they know we have an entire bag of tricks to respond to them. If all we have is one trick, a.k.a. nukes, then we are either going to be smashing eggs with mega-ton sledge-hammers or we are going to do nothing because no sane person is going to send in nukes for something relatively minor. We lose a tanker of oil (of 5 or 10) and we think maybe it was Iran who did it…we nuke them? Not happening, even if we have conclusive proof. They know it, and we know it…everyone knows it. Well, except you, who think we actually WOULD nuke someone like Iran over something like that. > [@](#): > > No, we don’t. We have far more capability than we need. We arm ourselves like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are going to reappear from the past and attack us, but all we are really doing is attacking Third World nations too weak to put up a serious fight. Other countries don’t arm themselves like we do, because the “utility” you speak of doesn’t exist. So prove it. We have global commitments, and our military is mostly a deterrent force. Your strawman about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is irrelevant, since I didn’t make that claim. Feel free to demonstrate that in the world today, the US has more capability than required to fill the actual, real world needs we put on it. If you want to claim we don’t need to fulfill those needs, then demonstrate or at least address why that is. Why we don’t need to protect either our interests or those of our allies. > [@](#): > > No; you are just talking like it’s the 19th century. No one is going to do that because it’s not profitable, and because we’d burn their entire nation to ash with nuclear weapons if they seriously endangered us, and rest of the world knows it. The rest of the world isn’t required to buy into America’s indulgent self image as the great hero and protector of freedom. Again, strawman. I never said anything about ‘great hero and protector of freedom’…I said we defend and protect our vital strategic and nation interests, and those of our allies. We do that for simple and quite selfish reasons that still seem beyond you. > [@](#): > > No; we just threaten people with them instead. And when they call our bluff, as it would be? Nuke the crap out of them and send them back to the stone age? Glass their ass? Some other ridiculous over the top response that you refuse to think through? Or cave in, because in the end we AREN’T going to nuke every nation that threatens our interests or those of whatever allies we might still have if we decided to bring our marbles home and let someone else protect our collective interests? I’m going with the latter, Alex. You can dream or fantasize that either we WOULD nuke the crap out of anyone who pissed us off or that no one would call our bluff, but I’m more into reality. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/42 "2013-02-15T23:10:04Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > When I go to work every day all I hear about is reduced promotion opportunities, mandatory seperations, furloughs for civilian workers, and lost contractor jobs. Every unit I know of has seen its budget decreased. Discretionary training spending has been frozen. They’re lecturing soldiers on using both sides of sheets of paper just to keep costs down. > > I don’t know what Army you are talking about, but the Army I’m in is reeling from massive budget cuts. > > And here’s the big problem: Everybody wants a smaller budget. Even the Pentagon agrees we need a smaller Army. But when it comes time to cut a program, what do you give up? Do you fire highly competent soldiers to reduce headcount? Do you violate your contractual obligations to veterans? Less training? Less aircraft? Somebody, somewhere, has to take the hit. THAT is the reason it is so hard to cut the Army budget. If the turkeys in Congress stopped funding weapons systems that the Pentagon says it doesn’t need, you’d probably be able to use one side of the paper. I’m in the commercial electronics industry, but I know a lot of people in both DoD and in electronics suppliers to the military. They are still debating stuff which we settled on 20 years ago. There are great requirements, but suppliers get away with murder in proving they meet the requirements. Moving to COTS is great, but everyone is so dead set in their ways that the military is wasting tons of money. And yes I know that there are lots of lobbyists working hard to keep this going. Maybe the Congress will stop building systems to ward off the imminent Russian invasion of Europe. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/43 "2013-02-15T23:25:22Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > It’s already happening, military sending is being cut. [No it isn’t.](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/9-11-and-a-measure-of-bin-ladens-success/241373/) Unless you’re talking about Sequestration, which hasn’t happened and likely will never happen. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/44 "2013-02-15T23:51:02Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Would you settle for the most effective defense force, or do you need expeditionary abilities that trump the next ten or so nations combined? None of the next ten _have_ any expeditionary abilities to speak of. Everyone relies on the US to provide the world’s muscle. Take the British in the Falklands war. The _only_ reason they succeeded was that Argentina had even less capability to operate outside their home territory. If the British had to take on the Argentinians on their own home soil, they couldn’t have done it successfully. Pretty much every other military in the world is only capable of taking on the countries they share a border with, or rocks like the Falklands that are distant from _both_ combatants. Only the US has the capability of putting major forces half-way around the world in the enemy’s home territory. On the other hand, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all good arguments that _not_ having that capability might be a good thing. After all, if you don’t have the _ability_ to do a stupid military adventure, you are far less likely to _start_ any stupid military adventures. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/45 "2013-02-16T01:40:32Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > None of the next ten _have_ any expeditionary abilities to speak of. Everyone relies on the US to provide the world’s muscle. Take the British in the Falklands war. The _only_ reason they succeeded was that Argentina had even less capability to operate outside their home territory. If the British had to take on the Argentinians on their own home soil, they couldn’t have done it successfully. But they didn’t have to and never would, which is why Britain does not maintain a force capable of invading Argentina. The question is whether the USA actually needs to be able to do something like that. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/46 "2013-02-16T04:28:02Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > If you are the one recommending budget cuts, it is incumbent on you to explain what capabilities you want to cut. The military is so huge that we could cut just about anything. For starters, the Navy has eleven carrier strike groups. I’d be quite happy if we cut that to ten, happier still at nine, eight, seven, … I really find it tough to imagine any realistic circumstance in which we’d need more than one in the Pacific and one in the Atlantic. Similarly, we have currently have 50 fast-attack submarines with more under construction. Why not get rid of most or all of them? The basic fact is that we haven’t had serious ship-to-ship combat for almost 70 years and we’re not going to, so there’s no point in maintaining Naval forces geared towards that. We could cut out the great majority of the Navy and we’d lose nothing but a portion of our deficit. Someone more knowledgeable than myself could surely offer many other examples of useless weapons and other things that the military wastes its money on. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/47 "2013-02-16T04:33:51Z")
[Here’s a few more suggestions.](http://www.salon.com/2012/12/12/7_absurd_ways_the_military_wastes_taxpayer_dollars/) ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/48 "2013-02-16T05:30:32Z")
Sorry if this has already been addressed in the thread, but didn’t going over the fiscal cliff at the beginning of the year include some pretty deep cuts to the military? If not, anyone here know why I thought that? If so, what happened to those cuts? ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/49 "2013-02-16T06:33:29Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yes, I expect South Korea to be able to see to its own defense. It does. The notion that South Korea or NATO is getting a free ride at US taxpayer’s expense is an untrue complaint. The ROK has one of the largest militaries in the world, standing at 639,000 active personnel with 2,900,000 regular reserves. It achieves these numbers through universal conscription. It should also be noted that over 300,000 South Koreans served in Vietnam. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/50 "2013-02-16T07:13:36Z")
GAWD - Military spending vs civilian spending - Econ 101. Soldiers get paid to sit in hell holes and keep them clean and safe. Civilians get paid to produce income Spending x million for a tank gets very little return unless you happen to need a tank before it becomes obsolete. Spending the same for a fleet of trucks means goods get to market - an economic benefit. Do we need to discuss the financial return on obscenely expensive fighter aircraft (which are already obsolete - unmanned missiles and, now, drones are much more efficient - no need for armor and life support systems or displays and switches)? Hell, we spend billions defending bases in hostile places - why do we have those bases there in the first place? Close them and tell the local to fight their own wars and we save not only the direct costs of operating the base, but the additional costs of defending it. How many doctors, teachers, scientists could we raise and educate (and pay decent wages to teachers) with the cost of a single F-22 ($420,000,000.00) according to [Report: F-22 Raptor Loses $79 Billion Advantage in Dogfights - ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/) ? ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/51 "2013-02-16T07:29:25Z")
You silly lib, we need to be able to fight the entire globe single handedly in any conceivable combat theatre, simultaneously to guard our “interests” and spread freedom and democracy. Spending American tax payer dollars on Americans… _spit_ the idea of it. :mad::mad::mad: ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/52 "2013-02-16T08:18:15Z")
Military spending is a subsidy. Nothing more and nothing less. Corporations get free protection on the seas. They have their overseas assets protected at no cost. Military spending is also a subsidy at home to the military industrial complex. Projects and equipment are developed up with little regard to protecting Americans at home, and much regard to projecting influence overseas for other reasons. Finally military spending is a subsidy to foreign governments, or rebels, who we favor. In order for the US to substantially cut back military spending, we will have to abandon mercantilism. Not seeing that happening ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/53 "2013-02-16T08:24:47Z")
If we allow the 9 percent reduction in military spending proposed by the Sequester to take place, the rest of the world will smell weakness and leap upon our freedoms like wild dogs. You know they want to. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/54 "2013-02-16T10:42:26Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > Do we need to discuss the financial return on obscenely expensive fighter aircraft (which are already obsolete - unmanned missiles and, now, drones are much more efficient - no need for armor and life support systems or displays and switches)? We are a long, long way from manned aircraft becoming obsolete. What do you imagine launches those unmanned missiles? That’s right, manned combat aircraft. Drones have uses now and potential for the distant future but again we are a long, long way from them replacing manned combat aircraft. They don’t have the payload, survivability, or situational awareness of manned planes. In terms of expense they aren’t nearly as cheap as you’d think; looking at the cost of a drone by itself overlooks the massive satellite uplink and other infrastructure needed for them to operate. > [@](#): > > Hell, we spend billions defending bases in hostile places - why do we have those bases there in the first place? Close them and tell the local to fight their own wars and we save not only the direct costs of operating the base, but the additional costs of defending it. This is just another spin on the factually untrue belief that foreign countries are getting a free ride for their defense at the expense of the US taxpayer that frequently comes from libertarians and isolationists. The South Korean defense budget of ₩ 33.0 trillion (2012), the 12th highest in the world, excludes an additional ₩1.68 trillion given by Korea to United States Forces Korea to maintain the bases there. The virtues of isolationism versus remaining engaged in the world and honoring our defense treaties with South Korea among other places can certainly be debated, but it all too frequently relies on incorrect assumptions. I do not disagree with you that the military could be pared down or that certain programs were not worth the cost and should have been scrapped. My personal white whale in that regards is the B-2, the most obscenely expensive and unneeded plane in history, with a flyaway cost per planes of $711 million dollars, and when the cost of the entire program (R&D, testing, etc) is divided per plane it comes out to the obscene figure of $2.1 _billion_ per plane. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/55 "2013-02-16T11:43:15Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The South Korean defense budget of ₩ 33.0 trillion (2012), the 12th highest in the world, excludes an additional ₩1.68 trillion given by Korea to United States Forces Korea to maintain the bases there. I’m sure you meant to type in billions. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/56 "2013-02-16T11:46:40Z")
> [@nachtmusick](#): > > If we allow the 9 percent reduction in military spending proposed by the Sequester to take place, the rest of the world will smell weakness and leap upon our freedoms like wild dogs. > > You know they want to. Considering America outspends the top 15 coutries combined militarily, with probably 12 of them our allies, I don’t think a 9% reduction is going to have anyone wanting to pounce any time soon. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/57 "2013-02-16T14:25:17Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > I’m sure you meant to type in billions. He did not. The South Korean budget is measured in trillions. South Korea’s currency, the Won, is worth a fraction of a penny, so the numbers are quite arresting even though it’s just a conversion thing. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/58 "2013-02-16T14:36:13Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > But they didn’t have to and never would, which is why Britain does not maintain a force capable of invading Argentina. > > The question is whether the USA actually needs to be able to do something like that. I agree. That was the point I was trying (perhaps badly) to make in the second paragraph of my post. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/59 "2013-02-16T14:48:11Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > It does. The notion that South Korea or NATO is getting a free ride at US taxpayer’s expense is an untrue complaint. The ROK has one of the largest militaries in the world, standing at 639,000 active personnel with 2,900,000 regular reserves. It achieves these numbers through universal conscription. It should also be noted that over 300,000 South Koreans served in Vietnam. Right, I didn’t intend to imply that South Korea did not or could not defend itself. > [@razncain](#): > > Considering America outspends the top 15 coutries combined militarily, with probably 12 of them our allies, I don’t think a 9% reduction is going to have anyone wanting to pounce any time soon. Right, NATO accounts for 70% of the world’s military spending. There is no foe that justifies this level of outlay, particularly when there isn’t sufficient revenue to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409/60 "2013-02-16T15:05:07Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > He did not. The South Korean budget is measured in trillions. South Korea’s currency, the Won, is worth a fraction of a penny, so the numbers are quite arresting even though it’s just a conversion thing. Thanks, I missed the symbol. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-pare-down-u-s-military-spending/650409.md?page=4)