Military spending.

[smiling_bandit]

Henry B, and I mean no offense by this, but your last post is in such a state that I cannot easily read it. (That may just be me, but…

So I am going to address what I think is your concern.

terrorists

These may be the most notable threat now, but even within the last year, American military proved crucial to blowing away the corrupt Taliban regime supporting them. Aside from which, military recruitment creates the special forces and support needed to accomplish surgical anti-terrorist strikes.

Another point you make about ships is somewhat irrelevant. Battleships aren’t used much and have no major place in the fleets. I think you don’t really understand the modern composition of our fleets. They are used, but do not form the key components; one might say they are a relic. Carriers form the Naval backbone today. There has been a long debate about whether they need be so big or not, but thus far the supercarrier design has proven effective.

So if some bad guy, with moustasche, would treathen Your interest, Your President would pick up the telephone and say: “Look buster, if You do not …(what ever), I will send some 500 planes within 3 hours to take care of Your (what ever), and control (what ever),.
Within 24 hours we will have 763 air-carriers coming with xxx.000 solidiers, with double so much equipment as You have.
Within 38,5 hour we will fry your ass…”
I think every dictator in the world would explain “that there has been a misunderstanding… It is moi krazy kommader…”

If I understand right, you are suggesting a variant on the old “talk softly and carry a big stick” routine. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be as effective as it used to be.

Witness Iraq. It took months of diplomacy, threats, and loud speeches by the President to convince Saddam to let inspectors in.

I just want to ask why You spend so much money on ships, when equipment for a few million soldiers storaged where-ever in Your country + the transporting capacity would be enough.

Ah, but what do you think those ships are? They ARE the support and military for the US of A. Modern history has proven that sending masses of ground troops in without support is moronic and suicidal. Ships are transports. They also carry supplies, military support in the form of Aircraft, and safeguard the troops being sent around the world.

I do not know how many soldiers You need abroad to take care of a reasonable figure of bases in the world so that You could cover, what ever You need to cover. Maybe it would be enough to have Your ally just to keep their army around Your base, protecting it from what ever threat. They should do it for free, if You are defending them for free, shouldn’t they.
I hope You trust Your allies, so much that they can do it.
Someone mentioned that there is very much US soldiers in Europe, e.g…

I don’t understand this at all. The purpose of having a military base to is project force. There is no point in having an unstaffed base. Local military command can do an adequate job with portable equipment and some converted buildings, but housing troops, storing equipment, and keeping up the Heavy Iron takes pace and facilities.

Are you suggesting that our bases positioned to defend other areas outside the Continental US should be unstaffed and… defended by the local peoples? Why would we have the base at all then? The whole point is to have a base available to project force. The idea of “trust” is irrelevant. We simply see the need to have our forces available in the event of an emergency.

Let’s say Germany. Do You trust Germany to guard Your facilities, or do You think that there can pop up an enemy to Germany so fast that You would not have time to fly over the Atlantic?

A few years ago, I would have said “yes”. Perhaps now there is no threat. However, it will be easier for the US to keep a base (one which helps us keep up our skills in international military relations) than to develop one in time of need.

And to address your point, no, no one in the military trusts any other military to take care of its toys for them.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by Henry B *
Secondly.
You have these big planes that carries everything from tanks to smaller objects.
I do not know how many You have, but I would assume that 1.000 - 2.000 of these planes would be sufficent for the following scenarios:

If you are talking about the C5A Galazy transport plane, the capacity of one of those planes is about 1,500 sq ft or 3 M1 tanks or 250,000 lbs of supplies. Price Tag $167 M

Compare that to a single LMSR cargo ship that can carry 393,000 sq ft and displaces about 55,000 tons. Price tag $265 M

So…whats the better bargain for moving 1 million men and their equipment? 1000 aircraft or a couple large high speed container ships?

The answer is both.

*Originally posted by Henry B *
What I do not understand, is what do You need those big battleships for? I understand that they were very handy some 50 years ago, but if a power of the size of France or bigger, would be so crazy that they would attack You, what do You think are the easiest targets for missiles?

Most of those “big battleships” (presumably you mean the USS Iowa class battleships that went into service around WWII) have been pretty much decommissioned. Most of the big non-carrier ships are used to defend the aircraft carrier from aircraft and missles. The role of the big battleship (if there are any still around) is pretty much that of a floating firebase and weapons platform to support marine landings and ground offensives (as they were used in Desert Storm)

*Originally posted by Henry B *
You can spread out 300 tanks and 10.000 solidiers within hours, but how to spread out a big ship. (Ok I know You do not have so much tanks in Your warefare, but it is here just as an example. Anyhow, You have much sophisticated tech You need to spread that around with lorries or whatever does not be slower).

Economies of scale. a 50,000 ton ship delivers tanks a lot more efficiently than 100 50 ton ships.

*Originally posted by Henry B *
I go back to the, let’s say, 1.500 air-carriers. They obviously need a quite big armada of smaller aircraft which would take the control over any route these carriers has to take. You have air-bases all over the world, and You always get more from the neighbouring countries in whatever crises, so You do not need ships for that?

Its more like a dozen carriers…not 1500.

The whole point of having such a big Navy is that we can’t cover the entire world with permentant bases, nor would we want to. We want to be able to go into trouble spots with an appropriate response. Since 2/3 of the world is covered by oceans, Navy seems to be the way to go.

[smiling_bandit]

Its hard to tell what will be needed in the future by the military. One can make a case that the large army group is less relevant now. Yet still, the changes in the world have happened so fast it would be foolish to radically alter the military in so drastic a fashion now.
While I think fast-deployment corps are the way of the future, heavily armed units were used in the Desert Strom campaign and provide a much-needed “bulk” injection to strengthen the armed forces. This bulk comprises more than mere constripts, but heavily armed, heavily armored Army divisions.
I think if we can up the speed of these units, we’ll have a far stronger militay, but sadly, technology has not yet prived for Orbital Dropships.

[Henry_B]

tomndebb

A carrier force (which is accompanied by the fuel and munitions necessary to make repeated strikes on a target) is better prepared to carry out support for ground forces than having to send a massive fleet of bombers halfway around the world every time a bomb needs to be dropped.
Had you paid attention to the use of heavy bombers in Afghanistan, you’d have noticed that each strike required over twelve hours of flight time from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean (and that the strikes launched from the U.S. took over 24 hours to complete).

I am not speaking about bombers.
Seriously: Afghanistan was not a war in the classical meaning. You bombed mountains. (Just forgetting one road). You did not need very much troops, not xxx.000’s. Or You thought so.

Diago Garcia and launching something from US?
I really did not know that! I thought You were operating from e.g. Turkey. Anyhow, when bombing, You are bombing from bases.

If the next hot spot is between Russia and Estonia, do You have Your carriers on the Atlantic and operate from Nova Scotia or something? (A joke).

About the USSR submarines. A lot of them are rusting in Murmansk according to the Ministery here. The same ministery tells that many of them has nuke-waste inside and that they do not have money to do anything about it. They sink when they sink.

Every “big” country “has” to have a fleet. But if USSR were to invade Europe… I think Nato was about this and it is not a “naval” pact, even if the name says so. Sincerely I do not know what USSR would have done with carriers or what they imagened to do with their ships.
Fast going, fast attacking boats is more in my line.

Right or wrong, I think that USA should have this kind of fast whatever-troops, and the dictators could not count on the "slow’ process from their enemies.

The rest of your scenarios do, indeed, indicate a lack of understanding regarding the logistics of carrying out a war (particularly when the U.S., at the time the fleet was being built, eschewed nuclear first strike declarations*).

I fully understand that the fleet is a product of history. That is my point here.

---

Just as a note:
I am myself trained in a type of “very fast reaction”-mode, in Finland (my country). Just an address and You get everything You need. And the main thing is to get Your, (in this case mine), ass there quickly.
If You think in a Bismarckian way, first the troops to one place all in a formation, a speech etc., I am certainly not.

And in that thinking, yes, I am quite out of record.

I have to add that the Finnish army does not pass its boarders. So my thinking is maybe a little bit different.

If You assume You have combats in “Pennisylvania”, on duty or off duty and You can’t get them, lets say into a plane within 2 hours, there is something very wrong with Your planning.

Let’s again assume, and forget Your books, they are not allowed to tell You anything that can’t be told to the boy-scouts.

You are a commander of 1.000 guys. You have 5 planes that can carry a lot. What do You do?

• You have lot of stuff always needed in war ready in the planes, the plane standing or flying in a reharsal mode.
• You have Your staff at the base that have 2 hours to put in the technical stuff that can vary. Right?
• Your guys that are on leave can be informed within 5 minutes, if You have proper communictions. If You do not have, I can sell You some.
• If the guys on leave can’t come to the base within 2 hours, there is something wrong with Your regulations about leave. (Those that are on holidays are a different matter, they can be in New York or New Mexico, they have a permission for that).

Then the soldiers with proper equipment are flying to the destination. They are not flying back and forth for every coffee-brake.

If Your answer is: “It’s not that simple”, please give me an example, write Your congressman and ask him to see to that the commander is kicked out.
If he (in this case You), begins with filling up the plane, there is something wrong. Remember that Europe lived with “2 hours to the war”-emergency for 30 years.
A missile could reach every capital in Europe within about 8 minutes.

If You think You can win any dictator/enemy with bombing, why didn’t You win Vietcong?

I hope those that are for a “super-fast” army will win the debate. It will cool down the hot-heads in about 20 countries.

Btw. You can probaly find books about Russian resictance and the Finns fighting against Stalin 1939 and onward. They are about the same thing: hide, be fast, ambush to get guns, no support available.
I just mention that because I can not begin to tell what I am trained for.
My elder brother (54 years old) is still training, type “2 weeks in the forest without food and nothing is allowed that You can’t carry with You”. Just mentioning this.

Anyhow. If You feel that You should use 400 B for helping the peace in the world, please do so. I just think that You do it in a wrong, altmodish, way.
And I think You are spending money in a not very effective way, if You think about the other war, the war against Terrorism.
But it’s Your money.

[Henry_B]

Thank You everyone for Your most polite answers.
Yes, I also think that I write thus, that it is sometimes hard to follow my thoughts.
But we also think very differently, as I have seen in many threads.
But that is what the debates are for.
I anyhow appriciate Your answers.

If you are talking about the C5A Galazy transport plane, the capacity of one of those planes is about 1,500 sq ft or 3 M1 tanks or 250,000 lbs of supplies. Price Tag $167 M

Yeah, these are the planes I ment!
So 100 B, would give 600 pieces. Enough I think.
And the cost would be maybe spread out on 4 years and I think the price per piece would go down reasonably. Keeping up this planes, training etc. daily stuff, You would save from other expences quite easily (according to my scenario).

Anyhow. If You would have bases with minimum personel etc., I think You would be better of. As the reputation as a nation.
You see, You could take almost all the “goodies” with You to Your base, whenever needed. In time of crisis.

It is maybe not so polite of me to say it, but the truth is that foreign troops always raises hatred in some scale.

There is e.g. English troops in Gibraltar, planes flying etc.
Can You imagine why? I can’t.
Let’s put it this way:
The USSR behaved very bad in DDR 1954 (if I remember the year correct), Hungary 1956, Checkoslovakia 1968, and put some heavy pressure on my country as well. (It has been a secret, but now it is very clear after our gays got into the archives in Moscow).
USA have been involved in some countries too, during this period.

Do You think that the Polacks hated the Russians? Yes. Yes. Yes.
Officially USSR did not do anything wrong there in a bigger scale.

Why do You think that US could be hated in a country where it has been “involved” and also in that particular countrys neighbours?

Or do you think You are not hated?
Why on earth would only the Russian army be hated?

The bottom line: It would not be costing too much for USA to control the world, if it wants to control the world, from its own ground.
Or keep the peace, if we put it more politely. Not if we take 400B as an annual standard that You seem to be quite happy about.

I think the allies could live with the “rent a base for 0 USD and we guard it from outside for free”, with minimal US personel.
I can not understand that You can’t defend a country together with that country, which means a quite deep intergration, even if You will have the most secret “goodies” for Yourselves. Those that has to be there and can’t be put there in a forthnight or so.
I think You can watch over Your “goodies” with minimal personel.

In some cases Your allies can’t be trusted. But in some cases You also change allies like over-coats.

I think my scenario would be better in the long run.
Within some years it would be much cheeper even.

As some of You might have seen in other threads, I am propagating for a international force that would keep this globe in some kind of peace. I am for developing such, step by step.
I do not think I am a very naive person, but anyhow I think You could be the core of this kind of force.
But then of course, You would not only serv US intrests, but the worlds.
Who would be against that?
Who would hate international forces?
Who would hate the world (-troops)?

And the other countries woul pay as well for the operations.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by Henry B *
Yeah, these are the planes I ment!
So 100 B, would give 600 pieces. Enough I think.
**

Enough for what? A single battalion of tanks and their support vehicles?

Look…the problem is that we don’t know what will be required in the next war or conflict. We might need a broadsword (like Desert Storm) or scalpal (like Afghanistan). Some military solutions require a highly trained force to be on the ground in 24 hours while others will require a protracted stay and required a massive logistics chain to support it. Either way, most of the military is supporting functions. A tank or bomber is useless without a steady flow of supplies and spare parts to keep it running.

As a side note, the military is developing new Medium Brigades that provide a nice mix between the high deployability of a Light Infantry or Airborne force and the firepower of a Heavy (Mechanised or Armored) force. A big problem in Desert Storm was that the 82nd Airborne was deployed to Saudi Arabia in a few days but they had very little firepower to withstand Iraqi armor if they suddenly decided to rush them (manportable rockets are not really much of a match against the speed and firepower of a tank). Another problem is Kosovo was that we got the M1s there (presumably from bases in Europe) but they were too big and unweildy for the terrain (an 80 ton tank is useless if it is too big to cross the local bridges).

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *
**That’s not really true.

In raw dollars, we spend more, but as a percentage of GDP, we’re in the same ballpark as France or the UK. **

Nope. I would have to dig up the figures, but both France and the UK spend much less on their military than the US in %age of their GNP. And still, they spent much more than other european countries.

[Henry_B]

Enough for what? A single battalion of tanks and their support vehicles?

Well one plane can carry 3 tanks. Let’s assume that half of the capacity would be tanks and the other half support vehicles loaded with equipment etc…
That would mean 1.200 tanks + the equipment.
Then we would need to subtract some 20 % for the soldiers = still 1.000 tanks.

And the time to fly back and drive in new tanks and vehicles, from let’s say Alaska and other places. 50 hours?

So every week there would be some 2 - 3.000 US-tanks coming down. With soldiers and all the other stuff.

Mama! I never want to be a dictator opposing US!

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**Nope. I would have to dig up the figures, but both France and the UK spend much less on their military than the US in %age of their GNP. And still, they spent much more than other european countries. **

According to this cite:

America accounts for 36% of the world’s military spending, and the annual budget is ~281B. Next in line is Russia at 6% and 44B, followed by France, Japan (?) and England each at about 40B amd 5% of the world’s total. By my count the US out spends the next 9 countries combined.

I’ll post this now, but I will look for a better site.

[Rhum_Runner]

Ok, this is better

As a percentage of GDP in 1997, US 3.4%, France 2.98%, UK 2.81%, amd Qatar at a whopping 14%. Can you imagine the militray we could have if we spent 14% of GDP on defense? It boggles the mind.

Anyone got numbers on China? I can’t find any.

[clairobscur]

I quickly checked the CIA factbook. In percentage of GDP, the military spendings would be :
USA : 3.2 %

UK : 2.3%

France : 2.6%

For comparison, I checked some random other European countries :

Germany : 1.4%
Italy : 1.6%
Norway (surprise!) : 2.1%
Spain: 1.1%
So, US military spendings are clearly higher, in percentage of GDP, than european ones, even including big spenders like France and the UK.

[smiling_bandit]

Henry B, I mean no disrespect, but I think you have no actual comprehension of the fact that America already has most of the capabilities you suggest we invest in. We have whole military groups able to deploy on th other side of the planet within 48 hours.
You’re posts are too long and rambling to go into all the details. Suffice it to say we have fast, hard hitting military power from every branch of service save the coast guard.

[Telemark]

According to this (http://www.theaviationzone.com/facts/c5.htm)there were about 120 Galaxy aircraft delivered to the USAF. These include the original C5-A and the newer C5-Bs.

The mainstay of the USAF cargo fleet is the C-141 Starlifter. According to this (http://www.theaviationzone.com/facts/c141.htm) there are about 270 of them in service, upgraded since the original delivery. They are smaller than the C5-A Galaxy and can’t carry an Abrams tank, but can carry the smaller Sheridan or 5 HMMVVs.

All told, that’s about 400 heavy lifting planes. I’m guessing that all couldn’t be put into immediate use or constant service overseas, just based on the need for maintainence and other required duties.

[Psi_Cop]

The CIA World Factbook is indeed a very good souce for numbers and statistics from the world. However, clairobscur’s numbers aren’t quite enough for a good comparison, I think. Therefore, I’m posting the figures for a number of countries. Please note the fiscal years upon which these are based. For the United States, for example, it is Fiscal Year 99, which explains why the figure is less than 300 billion dollars. All figures, regardless of country, are in dollars.

The following countries are ordered occuring to how I thought of them. I mostly tried to think of countries that are either allied with the US and in high-conflict areas (like Israel) or stand as possible opponents to the US (such as China).

United States: Expenditures of 276.7 billion dollars, 3.2% of the GDP in 1999.

Russia: No figures listed in the World Factbook (why, I wonder?)

China: This one is rather odd. Official expenditures of 20.048 billion dollars, 1.6% of the GDP, in 2002. However, also according to the World Factbook, actual military spending is closer to 45 to 65 billion, between 3.5% and 5.0% of the GDP.

Israel: 8.86 billion, 8% of the GDP as of 2001.

Iraq: 1.3 billion dollars, with no listed percentage of GDP. Doing a bit of division on my own from the stated GDP of 59 billion, I get military spending as 2.2%. This is as of 2001.

Saudi Arabia: 18.3 billion dollars, clocking in at 13% of the GDP as of 2000.

North Korea: 5.124 billion. And here I thought Saudi Arabia was high… North Korea spends 31.3% of its GDP on the military. (2001).

South Korea: 12.8 billion, 2.8%, as of 2000.

Luxomburg (looked up on a whim): 147.8 million, 0.8% of the GDP (2002).

Pitcairn Islands: No military spending. Then again, they have a population of 47 (yes, 47 people) and no GDP to speak of.

UK: 31.7 billion, 2.32% of the GDP as of 2002.

France: 46.5 billion, 2.57% of the GDP, as of 2002.

Conclusions: The US spending on the military is far less as a percentage of the GDP than many other nations, several our “enemies.” North Korea, with nearly a third of the GDP being spent on the military, is the clear winner. The Pitcairn Islands spend the least <grin>. Use these facts and figures however you see fit. I think that numbers as part of the country’s budget might be more telling then that of the GDP, but I would have to calculate them all by hand, and I have an appointment to get to now. For example, compared to the US budget, our military spending is better than 15 percent of all government spending.

-Psi Cop

[ElJeffe]

Most of those “big battleships” (presumably you mean the USS Iowa class battleships that went into service around WWII) have been pretty much decommissioned. Most of the big non-carrier ships are used to defend the aircraft carrier from aircraft and missles. The role of the big battleship (if there are any still around) is pretty much that of a floating firebase and weapons platform to support marine landings and ground offensives (as they were used in Desert Storm)

To the best of my knowledge, battleships are no longer used. They’d basically be giant targets, and of little use otherwise. Battleships work great if you have a really big, stationary target you need to sink - like other battleships - but otherwise, they’re not too practical. The closest thing we have to a battleship anymore is the destroyer, which is smaller, and better equipped to deal with modern warfare situations.

Mind you, I’m no expert on the matter. I get my info from the research my company did for a real-time strategy game we made for the military as a training tool. I learned a lot through osmosis, and hopefully I didn’t get the facts too mangled. If any of the above is inaccurate, I apologize. I can verify, though, that in our game, there were no battleships.
Jeff

[Henry_B]

smiling bandit and Telemark. Thank You for Your clear and convincing answers.

You remember naturally the desert war:

• Kuwait was slant-drilling Iraqian oil.
• Saddam, with the moustasche, got pissed.
• Saddam sent signals that he will invade Kuweit.
• USA gave unclear signals.
• Saddam thought it’s OK to invade Kuweit, as a former ally of USA. He did not give a shit about the hundreds of millions of Iraqi oil going into Kuwaitian pockets. But it suited his propaganda.
  And so he did attack.
  Let’s stop here.

If the signals would have been more straight; a phone call from Mr President about frying Saddams ass within 48 hours, or even a month, I think crazy-Saddam would still be thinking about it…

---

So now everything is already available, all the logistics are at hand, and You can fix a defence for any of Your allies within 48 hours.

So why on earth are You spending so much money on being all around the world?
Or do You believe that the possible enemies of Your allies do not believe that You will keep Your possible defence-contracts with Your allies?

Is it very concpiracy-thin-foil-hat-thinking, if I think that USA gives a shit about the allies and just are there looking for its own interests?
Like USSR in Polen.

I hope this post was clear.

[Neurotik]

By the way, is it established fact that the Kuwaitis had a deliberate policy of slant drilling? Rather than simple mistakes on border oil fields?

[UncleBill]

Re: Usefulness of Battleships

This action fires nine 2700 pound armor piercing projectiles (or nine 1900 pound High Capacity projectiles) up to about 42,000 yards (or 24 miles) at about two rounds per minute per gun. This can cause MAJOR hate and discontent with the Bad Guys[sup]TM[/sup] who are miles away from the shore. I’ve seen the impact crater from one of these. They can be VERY useful against land targets, say… before the Marines storm a beach, for instance. No other weapon in the US arsenal can come close to that destructive power. And they carry cruise missiles, too.

[Tripler]

*Originally posted by Chumpsky *
**Actually, no. We do not spend our money on defense. We spend it on war.

In fact, the U.S. military has not been used to defend the territory of the U.S. since 1812. And, despite the constant military operations, not a single military act since at least WWII can even remotely be justified as “defense.” You can argue about whether these actions are justified, but it is just lying to claim that they are “defense.” **

I gotta back up a second here. . .

What about the Cold War? Obsiously with all the strategic military infrastructure we had just to simply construct to defend and deter it, and the price of what we still maintain, there’s a large cost associated with it:

[ul]
[li]All the nuclear weapons systems we are maintaining or decomissioning . . .[/li][li]All of the intelligence collection/interpretation systems we continue to use . . .[/li][li]All of the forward operating/overseas bases we maintain . . .[/li][li]The stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction we’re rendering safe. . .[/li][li]A cost to the research and development of new technologies to get us out of the Cold War mindframe of fighting. . .[/li][li]A massive cost of supporting the troops themselves, i.e. to feed, house, clothe them and their families . . .[/li][li]A cost to the actual operations around the world right now. . .[/li][/ul]

Granted, the Cold War is over. However, I think the military is doing a simply spectacular job in reusing a lot of the above technologies and infrastructure in combating terrorism. Using and maintaining forward bases, intelligence collection systems, rapidly deployable forces, far outweigh the cost of reinventing the wheel.

I think the previous posts have done a good job in raising the point of military spending in terms of GDP. It’s all a matter of perspective - and media spun glurgle.

Remember the military drawbacks? They’re “doing more with less”. OPSTEMPO is through the roof while manpower is down. IIRC, 38 different operations in just the 8 years of the Clinton presidency? All the while reducing the military establishment to 1/3 of it’s Cold War size? It’s simply insane. . .

Tripler
But I’m not a beancounter. I just turn dirt. . .

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
**To the best of my knowledge, battleships are no longer used. They’d basically be giant targets, and of little use otherwise. Battleships work great if you have a really big, stationary target you need to sink - like other battleships - but otherwise, they’re not too practical. The closest thing we have to a battleship anymore is the destroyer, which is smaller, and better equipped to deal with modern warfare situations.

Mind you, I’m no expert on the matter. I get my info from the research my company did for a real-time strategy game we made for the military as a training tool. I learned a lot through osmosis, and hopefully I didn’t get the facts too mangled. If any of the above is inaccurate, I apologize. I can verify, though, that in our game, there were no battleships.
Jeff **

Counter-arguments here