Let's say the US defense budget was reduced to half its current size.

[Dissonance]

@Ravenman

I don’t know why people are criticizing the OP so much. Donald Rumsfeld proved we could invade and defeat a country with a much smaller, but more technological, military than what the generals said was necessary. As far as what happened after May 2003, well, you go to war with the army you have, right, Velocity?

Please tell me I’m being whooshed. There was never any question of defeating the Iraqi Army in 2003, a syphilitic monkey and a drunken chimpanzee could have done it. What Rumsfeld was rightly criticized for was his insistence on using a much smaller force than he was being told was necessary to actually occupy the country. Remember the scale of the looting and how little was done to secure sites where masses of arms and the alleged WMDs were located?

[Richard_Parker]

@Dissonance

Please tell me I’m being whooshed.

You’re being whooshed.

[Max_Rockatansky]

@Measure_for_Measure

For all those who are wringing their hands: get real. Comparing Russia’s drunken and conscripted soldiers to the US’s trained volunteer ones is apples and basketballs. Far better to look at spending. Rank the countries by military expenditure. The US is position number one. Our spending is about equal to the following 9 combined. That would be China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, India and South Korea. A total of two of those are our competitors. Let’s face it, you could double military spending and the fact-free brigade would be parroting the same nonsense, talking in vague terms of weakness and strength as if this were a body building contest.

Cites:
Military expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
List of countries with highest military expenditures - Wikipedia

Compare the US economy to others and see if that ranking changes much.

A more apples to apples comparison is spending by GDP as one of your links states: Military expenditure (% of GDP) | Data

The US isn’t number one, but it is high on the list. That’s for two reasons;

1. because we spend a lot of money on tech. Stealth fighters and ships are much more expensive than handing out rifles to conscripts.

2. There’s a maxim that says “If you do someone’s job long enough, it becomes your job”. We’ve been doing the job of our allies for 50 years. Now that the Cold War is over, it’s time they stepped up their game and we backed down ours a little bit. Not half. Maybe not even a quarter, but at least equal to the amount other nations should be doing by raising their military spending to 3-4% of GDP.

[Shodan]

@Velocity

It is the year 2017, and a new President is in the Oval Office. This President is not afraid to make bold and drastic changes.

You’ve been assigned to draw up the defense budget for the upcoming fiscal year. You have complete freedom and flexibility to allocate it however you please, within several conditions:

A) Overall defense spending is to be **halved **(from the level it was at in recent years.)

B) The new U.S. military, however small it may be, must still be capable of defeating Russia and/or China entirely conventionally, combating terrorism in the Middle East or anywhere else as needed, and still take on miscellaneous missions anywhere in the world as needed.

C) Congress must approve this new budget. In other words, it has to be “politically acceptable.”

How would you go about this?

I would offer my resignation, effective immediately. You can achieve condition A, or B and C.

Good luck to my successer, who will not succeed either.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@Shodan

I would offer my resignation, effective immediately. You can achieve condition A, or B and C.

Good luck to my successer, who will not succeed either.

Regards,
Shodan

Hah! My exact thoughts upon reading the OP originally.

[The_Joker_and_the_Thief]

@Robert163

1- Hey, I usually like reading your posts and allways wanted to ask, is your user name from All Along The Watchtower? It is, right?

2- I can accept the Idea that we need to be strong to protect our allies. Really, I can. But contradicting that basic concept is the fact that our Military is hardly ever actually deployed that way. Is there a balance to be achieved here?

Thanks, yes it is.

The idea, which some other posters have mentioned, is that US hegemony deters military conflict even if it is never used. There is certainly a balance, and it can be argued that the military is needlessly large, but I think it’s best to err on the side of caution.

[XT]

@The_Joker_and_the_Thief

Thanks, yes it is.

The idea, which some other posters have mentioned, is that US hegemony deters military conflict even if it is never used. There is certainly a balance, and it can be argued that the military is needlessly large, but I think it’s best to err on the side of caution.

The thing is, you have to look at what the actual requirements for the US military are before deciding whether it’s too large, not large enough or just right (I personally think that it’s slightly undersized for what’s being asked of it). And you have to look at it without the filter of preconceptions and bias either for or against the military, but clinically wrt what it’s supposed to do both for the US and for our allies. Looking at what we pay and comparing that to what other countries pay is silly, since this tells you nothing about requirements and capabilities of the US verse, say, China. We use and expect totally different things in our military than the Chinese do, and vice versa. We have completely different commitments and obligations and expectations as well.

I think the OP would be better served in starting a discussion such as this from a requirements perspective to determine what it’s supposed to do and how it’s supposed to do it than to arbitrarily say ‘Let’s say the US defense budget was reduced to half it’s current size’ without examining why it’s where it is in the first place.

[RickJay]

@Flyer

Now, things would depend somewhat on who was doing the invading, and where, but all of NATO together would have a hard time NOW fighting Russia and China simultaneously.

NATO’s primarily difficulty in fighting China would probably be that China is not located near the North Atlantic. I am struggling to envision how China and NATO could possibly get into a war.

[XT]

@RickJay

NATO’s primarily difficulty in fighting China would probably be that China is not located near the North Atlantic. I am struggling to envision how China and NATO could possibly get into a war.

There looks to be two paths to me from this. The thing is, Asia is always one of the toughest to take and hold, but you get more troop bonuses if you can do it, so I think NATO should be worried…VERY worried. Especially if the Chinese have a wild card or two.

[Trinopus]

Grin! This is obviously why Russia is so intent on grabbing Ukraine: it breaks up the region and takes away the bonus.