# Should the United States cut or increase the defense budget? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 25, 2015, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512 "2015-11-25T04:49:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/21 "2015-11-25T16:14:23Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > The defense budget measured any way - in current dollars, constant dollars or as a portion of GDP - has decreased since 2010. And with the increases in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that is likely to continue. It’s increased (and still increasing) if you [include interest on debt due to military spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Other_military-related_expenditures). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/22 "2015-11-25T16:17:35Z")
Even if it was for policing the American Empire, it still wouldn’t be oversized. We have 19 aircraft carriers versus the rest of the world’s 19 (a third of which are helicopter carriers anyway). ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/23 "2015-11-25T16:39:20Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > The main problem is that the USA spends money on stuff that is essentially useless. for example-Trident Missile submarines-they cost millions/day to run and maintain. The ability to laund a MIRVed nuclear ballistic missile form underwater is not of much use when fighting ISIS. Nor is it of much value when confronting China. We also spend tons of money on high tech junk-like robot horses that can carry supplies for troops. One well-aimed bullet can sever a hydraulic line and render the thing useless. and why do we still train paratroops? They haven’t been used in decades…unless you count disastewrs like Bien Dien Phu. How about Main battle tanks? New robot drones can destroy them easily. > the list goes on and on…and don’t forget-the USA maintains FIVE airforces! (The US Airforce, the Navy air arm, the Marines, air arm, the Army air arm, and the Coast Guard air arm) each with theor own commands, stoff, supplie clerks, etc.-a huge waste of redundancy. This entire post is a large collection of misapprehensions and nonfactual claims, to wit: [ul] [li]The Trident SLBM fleet: The purpose of the SLBM fleet, and nuclear weapons in general, is deterrence, not combat theatre utility. You can debate the value of deterrence in general but interestingly enough almost every major nation that has the financial and tech ical capability has or is actively developing nuclear weapons or has allied itself with another nation that has. If the Ukraine retained nuclear attack capability it is unlikely Russia would be so vigorous in invading it (although ot would make for a much more disconcerting conflict). Nuclear weapons are not and have never intended to be a deterrent against terrorisrm or low grade conflict, but even here the Trident submarine platform has been modified by the SSGB “Tactical Trident”, as a covert launch platform for the Tomahawk missile used to great effect in the Libyan Civil war.[/li][li]LS3 Robotic Mule: Is intended for use in remote or rough ground by advanced troops away from roads and other logistical channels. The prototype system does have a number of vulnerabilities that will be addressed in a field-ready version. A severed hydraulic line is just about the easiest thing to repair, and if you’ve ever humped heavy gear into the backcountry you would understand the value in not having to carry it yourself or rely on often uncooperative pack animals.[/li][li]Paratrooper/Airborne utility: While we no longer perform mass airdrops the way we did in the invasions of Europe during WWII, airdrop capability is crucial to fighting and logistical support in remote locations. It is a key capability for special forces operations, and if you think it is unnecessary, ask any soldier or flyer who has been rescued by a PJ what they think about the ‘uselessness’ of air drop operations.[/li][li]Main battle tank versus robot drone: there is no drone in current service that I’m aware of which can take out an M1 Abrams or any other modern main battle tank. (The Soviet era T-72 and T-80 battle tanks do not count, as their poor design renders them barely superior to WWII era tanks in terms of vulnerability.) [/li][li]Air Combat and Support Arms of the various services: Each of the services has a particular set of mission roles with some degree of overlap, but each has unique requirements that cannot be met all by one system or service. We can argue about the relevance of each service (e.g. are the Marines really necessary in modern warfare, or do we need a separate Air Force, or whatever) but the notion that one set of unified air combat and support capabilities will serve all service equally is naive.[/li][/ul] > [@Flyer](#): > > It needs to be increased – drastically so. > > It used to be official doctrine that the US military should have the ability to fight two major regional conflicts (i.e. the Korean War) at the same time. We no longer have that capability. > > We should return to the troop levels that we had at the end of the Cold War. That’s the minimum acceptable long-term level. Why, exactly, should we maintain a standing army capable of simultaneous fighting two Cold War era major conflicts? Do you think we should be actively engaged in ground fighting in world conflicts? Is this an effective use of money and political credit? How well has that worked out for us over the last fifty years? The biggest problem with how the defense budget is allocated and spent–other than that it is often determined by political chicanery rather than stated need from the services–is that it is often spent in developing next generation weapons to fight the previous generation’s conflicts. In other words, in the F-22 and F-35 we’re (somewhat debatably) developing the best, most advanced fighter aircraft in a world where automation and long range precision striking are becoming available to all players. The Long Range Bomber program aims to replace the B-1 and B-2 fleets with a high capacity stealthy bomber to replace a capability we already have little practical use for. We’ve fielded Littoral Combat Ships designed for multi-mode littoral operations that are by most accounts not really good for most of their intended roles and will be very expensive to maintain. On the other hand, of the three major threats we can anticipate–orbital space denial, cyberwarfare, and engineered biowarfare threats–we’re either funding at very low levels or doing little of practical utility despite the high spending profile. An offshoot of military research spending does develop legitimate new technologies via funding from DARPA and other research avenues, but much of the practical weapon system development is implementing existing technology poorly, or toward an unneeded capability. There is another aspect as well; by having a standing military and capability, we tend to think of it as a solution to all problems, just as a would-be carpenter with a new hammer imagines all fasteners to be a nail. Risk to an oil producer in the Middle East? Send in the troops. Terrorists hiding in caves in Afghanistan? Let’s execute a massive, ill-planned special operations raid. ISIS in Syria? ‘Smart’ bomb them back to the Stone Age. We rarely appreciate the long term consequences or thoroughly reflect on the past before engaging in military action because, hey, we have the capability. Instead of burning up US$4T to US$6T in Iraq and Afghanistan to little effect other than to create another generation of ‘invisible’ damaged veterans and hostility toward the US around the globe, we could have invested that money in alternative energy sources and other technologies that would make the petrodollars that are funding radical Islam irrelevant and unavailable, as well as addressing the issues of resource depletion and global climate change. That massive waste of potential should be the real focus of how we choose to spend government funds: on fighting wars versus averting them or undermining their basis, and using our military and logistical power in a focused way to isolate radical threats and humanitarian tragedies so that we can actually live up to the ideals our leaders often mouth in slogans and speeches. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/24 "2015-11-25T16:56:46Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > It’s increased (and still increasing) if you [include interest on debt due to military spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Other_military-related_expenditures). When considering DoD with the FBI, NASA, DOE and Homeland Security, and defense related interest on the debt inflation adjusted, FY-14 does appear to be slightly higher than 2010 after a three year dip. Guess you proved that the DoD budget is exploding.:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/25 "2015-11-25T16:57:30Z")
So how long before manned combat aircraft are obsolete? ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/26 "2015-11-25T17:24:05Z")
> [@GloryDays](#): > > Don’t you want to see a strong and powerful military power like never before? Why didn’t you just state this as your premise to be debated? Rather than start the debate with faux leading question? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/27 "2015-11-25T17:33:49Z")
It depends on what you mean by “obsolete”. Practically speaking, the ability to “dogfight” between fighters hasn’t been crucial to the overall conduct of modern warfare since the Korean War; most use of fighters has been interception of long range bombers which was offset by the advent of long range cruise missiles and (debatably) stealth capability in bombers, or maintaining air superiority in order to be able to perform close air support operations. The “furball” dogfights in the second Iraq War were so lopsided that the Iraqi Air Force was essentially grounded by the second day with against a conventional combination of non-stealthy F-16 and F/A-18 fighters. However, against a modern adversary with effective air combat capability, the general scheme would be to use standoff weapons rather than direct bombing or close air support until airfields and logistical chains could be suitably disrupted to undermine the ability to support air combat operations. Going head to head with an F-22 or F-35 against an equivalent Russian fighter is just too expensive and risky. Ironically, the more we spend on developing an advanced capability, the less likely we are to put it in harm’s way. It isn’t so much that some kind of combat drone will replace modern fighter aircraft as that their role versus small, stealthy, supersonic or hypersonic unmanned bombers or cruise missiles will become irrelevent with the proviso of being able to maintain secure control and communications links, which depends on being able to secure satellite communications. Our ultimate vulnerability in modern combat systems aren’t on the ground or in the air, but in space; disruption of our GPS and WGS systems would break the lynchpin of communications and precision navigation that our current systems are all built around. While it certainly isn’t trivial to attack these systems, either physically or by cyberattack, the potential impact could disrupt the intricate interoperation of systems which is critical to modern warfare. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/28 "2015-11-25T17:38:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That doesn’t even make sense. Sure it does. Didn’t you know that the American military is stronger than _both_ halves of Canada? It’s true! You can look it up! ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/29 "2015-11-25T17:51:15Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > I have no problem with _defense_ spending, however all I see is money being spent on _offense_. > **[United States Department of Homeland Security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security)** > > The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. Its stated missions involve anti-terrorism, border security, immigration and customs, cyber security, and disaster prevention and management. > It began operations on March 1, 2003, after being formed as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted in response to the September 11 att... :):D:cool:😛 ---
**Author:** ![botsgotme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@botsgotme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/botsgotme)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/30 "2015-11-26T15:45:40Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > This entire post is a large collection of misapprehensions and nonfactual claims, to wit: > [ul] > [li]The Trident SLBM fleet: The purpose of the SLBM fleet, and nuclear weapons in general, is deterrence, not combat theatre utility. You can debate the value of deterrence in general but interestingly enough almost every major nation that has the financial and tech ical capability has or is actively developing nuclear weapons or has allied itself with another nation that has. If the Ukraine retained nuclear attack capability it is unlikely Russia would be so vigorous in invading it (although ot would make for a much more disconcerting conflict). Nuclear weapons are not and have never intended to be a deterrent against terrorisrm or low grade conflict, but even here the Trident submarine platform has been modified by the SSGB “Tactical Trident”, as a covert launch platform for the Tomahawk missile used to great effect in the Libyan Civil war. Exactly-nuclear war is NOT going to happen. having the capacity to destroy the world 20 times makes as much sense as having the ability to do it once. Even the military leadership questions the value of having such large nuclear forces.[/li][li]LS3 Robotic Mule: Is intended for use in remote or rough ground by advanced troops away from roads and other logistical channels. The prototype system does have a number of vulnerabilities that will be addressed in a field-ready version. A severed hydraulic line is just about the easiest thing to repair, and if you’ve ever humped heavy gear into the backcountry you would understand the value in not having to carry it yourself or rely on often uncooperative pack animals. Why not just air drop supplies? and, when you robotic pack mule is bleeding hydraulic fluid, where tdo you go to get more? Your local auto parts store?[/li][li]Paratrooper/Airborne utility: While we no longer perform mass airdrops the way we did in the invasions of Europe during WWII, airdrop capability is crucial to fighting and logistical support in remote locations. It is a key capability for special forces operations, and if you think it is unnecessary, ask any soldier or flyer who has been rescued by a PJ what they think about the ‘uselessness’ of air drop operations.[/li][li]Main battle tank versus robot drone: there is no drone in current service that I’m aware of which can take out an M1 Abrams or any other modern main battle tank. (The Soviet era T-72 and T-80 battle tanks do not count, as their poor design renders them barely superior to WWII era tanks in terms of vulnerability.) Good, except that shipping tanks to a thetre of war takes time-most conflicts would be over. And a low tech plane like the A-10 warthog can knock off tanks quickly, and a MUCH lower cost (maybe that is why the USAF doesn’t want them).[/li][li]Air Combat and Support Arms of the various services: Each of the services has a particular set of mission roles with some degree of overlap, but each has unique requirements that cannot be met all by one system or service. We can argue about the relevance of each service (e.g. are the Marines really necessary in modern warfare, or do we need a separate Air Force, or whatever) but the notion that one set of unified air combat and support capabilities will serve all service equally is naive.[/li][/ul] So, having FIVE airforces is a good thing? How about ONE? At least that would save some $$. > > Why, exactly, should we maintain a standing army capable of simultaneous fighting two Cold War era major conflicts? Do you think we should be actively engaged in ground fighting in world conflicts? Is this an effective use of money and political credit? How well has that worked out for us over the last fifty years? > > The biggest problem with how the defense budget is allocated and spent–other than that it is often determined by political chicanery rather than stated need from the services–is that it is often spent in developing next generation weapons to fight the previous generation’s conflicts. In other words, in the F-22 and F-35 we’re (somewhat debatably) developing the best, most advanced fighter aircraft in a world where automation and long range precision striking are becoming available to all players. The Long Range Bomber program aims to replace the B-1 and B-2 fleets with a high capacity stealthy bomber to replace a capability we already have little practical use for. We’ve fielded Littoral Combat Ships designed for multi-mode littoral operations that are by most accounts not really good for most of their intended roles and will be very expensive to maintain. > > On the other hand, of the three major threats we can anticipate–orbital space denial, cyberwarfare, and engineered biowarfare threats–we’re either funding at very low levels or doing little of practical utility despite the high spending profile. An offshoot of military research spending does develop legitimate new technologies via funding from DARPA and other research avenues, but much of the practical weapon system development is implementing existing technology poorly, or toward an unneeded capability. > > There is another aspect as well; by having a standing military and capability, we tend to think of it as a solution to all problems, just as a would-be carpenter with a new hammer imagines all fasteners to be a nail. Risk to an oil producer in the Middle East? Send in the troops. Terrorists hiding in caves in Afghanistan? Let’s execute a massive, ill-planned special operations raid. ISIS in Syria? ‘Smart’ bomb them back to the Stone Age. We rarely appreciate the long term consequences or thoroughly reflect on the past before engaging in military action because, hey, we have the capability. Instead of burning up US$4T to US$6T in Iraq and Afghanistan to little effect other than to create another generation of ‘invisible’ damaged veterans and hostility toward the US around the globe, we could have invested that money in alternative energy sources and other technologies that would make the petrodollars that are funding radical Islam irrelevant and unavailable, as well as addressing the issues of resource depletion and global climate change. > > That massive waste of potential should be the real focus of how we choose to spend government funds: on fighting wars versus averting them or undermining their basis, and using our military and logistical power in a focused way to isolate radical threats and humanitarian tragedies so that we can actually live up to the ideals our leaders often mouth in slogans and speeches. > > Stranger QUD ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/31 "2015-11-26T15:57:32Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > On the other hand, of the three major threats we can anticipate–orbital space denial . . . Wait, what?! ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/32 "2015-11-26T16:46:34Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > QUD We need to go after the [Revolutionary Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force)? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/33 "2015-11-26T17:22:29Z")
> [@botsgotme](#): > > QUD Urgency signal recieved? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Wait, what?! Orbital space denial intentionally is creating a condition where satellites cannot be securely deployed in a particular orbit, either by actively attacking them with targetted weapons (ASAT) or filling the orbit with sufficient debris to pose collision hazard and cascading failures (Kessler Syndrome). As more nations achieve space launch capability, the risk of this becomes greater, and the dependence of modern combat systems on space communications and navigation renders them vulnerable to this type of attack. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/34 "2015-11-26T20:49:16Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > This entire post is a large collection of misapprehensions and nonfactual claims, to wit: > [ul] > [li]The Trident SLBM fleet: The purpose of the SLBM fleet, and nuclear weapons in general, is deterrence, not combat theatre utility. You can debate the value of deterrence in general but interestingly enough almost every major nation that has the financial and tech ical capability has or is actively developing nuclear weapons or has allied itself with another nation that has. If the Ukraine retained nuclear attack capability it is unlikely Russia would be so vigorous in invading it (although ot would make for a much more disconcerting conflict). Nuclear weapons are not and have never intended to be a deterrent against terrorisrm or low grade conflict, but even here the Trident submarine platform has been modified by the SSGB “Tactical Trident”, as a covert launch platform for the Tomahawk missile used to great effect in the Libyan Civil war.[/li][li]LS3 Robotic Mule: Is intended for use in remote or rough ground by advanced troops away from roads and other logistical channels. The prototype system does have a number of vulnerabilities that will be addressed in a field-ready version. A severed hydraulic line is just about the easiest thing to repair, and if you’ve ever humped heavy gear into the backcountry you would understand the value in not having to carry it yourself or rely on often uncooperative pack animals.[/li][li]Paratrooper/Airborne utility: While we no longer perform mass airdrops the way we did in the invasions of Europe during WWII, airdrop capability is crucial to fighting and logistical support in remote locations. It is a key capability for special forces operations, and if you think it is unnecessary, ask any soldier or flyer who has been rescued by a PJ what they think about the ‘uselessness’ of air drop operations.[/li][li]Main battle tank versus robot drone: there is no drone in current service that I’m aware of which can take out an M1 Abrams or any other modern main battle tank. (The Soviet era T-72 and T-80 battle tanks do not count, as their poor design renders them barely superior to WWII era tanks in terms of vulnerability.) [/li][li]Air Combat and Support Arms of the various services: Each of the services has a particular set of mission roles with some degree of overlap, but each has unique requirements that cannot be met all by one system or service. We can argue about the relevance of each service (e.g. are the Marines really necessary in modern warfare, or do we need a separate Air Force, or whatever) but the notion that one set of unified air combat and support capabilities will serve all service equally is naive.[/li][/ul] > > Why, exactly, should we maintain a standing army capable of simultaneous fighting two Cold War era major conflicts? Do you think we should be actively engaged in ground fighting in world conflicts? Is this an effective use of money and political credit? How well has that worked out for us over the last fifty years? > > The biggest problem with how the defense budget is allocated and spent–other than that it is often determined by political chicanery rather than stated need from the services–is that it is often spent in developing next generation weapons to fight the previous generation’s conflicts. In other words, in the F-22 and F-35 we’re (somewhat debatably) developing the best, most advanced fighter aircraft in a world where automation and long range precision striking are becoming available to all players. The Long Range Bomber program aims to replace the B-1 and B-2 fleets with a high capacity stealthy bomber to replace a capability we already have little practical use for. We’ve fielded Littoral Combat Ships designed for multi-mode littoral operations that are by most accounts not really good for most of their intended roles and will be very expensive to maintain. > > On the other hand, of the three major threats we can anticipate–orbital space denial, cyberwarfare, and engineered biowarfare threats–we’re either funding at very low levels or doing little of practical utility despite the high spending profile. An offshoot of military research spending does develop legitimate new technologies via funding from DARPA and other research avenues, but much of the practical weapon system development is implementing existing technology poorly, or toward an unneeded capability. > > There is another aspect as well; by having a standing military and capability, we tend to think of it as a solution to all problems, just as a would-be carpenter with a new hammer imagines all fasteners to be a nail. Risk to an oil producer in the Middle East? Send in the troops. Terrorists hiding in caves in Afghanistan? Let’s execute a massive, ill-planned special operations raid. ISIS in Syria? ‘Smart’ bomb them back to the Stone Age. We rarely appreciate the long term consequences or thoroughly reflect on the past before engaging in military action because, hey, we have the capability. Instead of burning up US$4T to US$6T in Iraq and Afghanistan to little effect other than to create another generation of ‘invisible’ damaged veterans and hostility toward the US around the globe, we could have invested that money in alternative energy sources and other technologies that would make the petrodollars that are funding radical Islam irrelevant and unavailable, as well as addressing the issues of resource depletion and global climate change. > > That massive waste of potential should be the real focus of how we choose to spend government funds: on fighting wars versus averting them or undermining their basis, and using our military and logistical power in a focused way to isolate radical threats and humanitarian tragedies so that we can actually live up to the ideals our leaders often mouth in slogans and speeches. > > Stranger This is great but how come the US has had its ass kicked for 40 years by guys with AK47s and IEDs? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/35 "2015-11-26T21:33:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by \*\*GloryDays \*\* > Don’t you want to see a strong and powerful military power like never before? God no. And I certainly don’t want to pay for it. Let’s have a nice lean and powerful military. We can cut spending and still protect ourselves. Do you really think 37 U.S. military installations in Germany, for example, are essential to our national security? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/36 "2015-11-26T21:39:46Z")
> [@GloryDays](#): > > Some say that the U.S. spends more on defense and military than any other country combined. Some say that President Obama is cutting and gutting the military to pre World War I I levels. Should the United States cut the defense budget or increase it to a high level like never before - even higher than Ronald Reagan ’ s and George W. Bush’s levels? Who are your [del]partisan rumor-mongers[/del]sources? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/37 "2015-11-26T21:54:07Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Orbital space denial intentionally is creating a condition where satellites cannot be securely deployed in a particular orbit, either by actively attacking them with targetted weapons (ASAT) or filling the orbit with sufficient debris to pose collision hazard and cascading failures (Kessler Syndrome). As more nations achieve space launch capability, the risk of this becomes greater, and the dependence of modern combat systems on space communications and navigation renders them vulnerable to this type of attack. That’s theoretically possible, but is any nation’s military actually working on such technology? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/38 "2015-11-26T22:02:56Z")
I, for one, welcome our new robo-mule servants. Where do I get one? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/39 "2015-11-27T00:52:21Z")
Simple enough, just cross-breed a robo-horse with a cyber-donkey. ---
**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:** [November 27, 2015, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512/40 "2015-11-27T02:42:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s theoretically possible, but is any nation’s military actually working on such technology? IIRC, the Chinese test fired one several years ago and caused all sorts of havoc when it blew up one of their sats and spread debris all over the place. [QUOTE=up\_the\_junction] This is great but how come the US has had its ass kicked for 40 years by guys with AK47s and IEDs? [/QUOTE] If feel like, as with many things, your definition and mine wildly differ. How do you define ‘ass kicked’ exactly? 'Cause from my perspective, it doesn’t seem like that’s what’s happened to the US. To me, it looks more like we kicked a lot of ass while pouring truly staggering amounts of treasure (and blood) down the drain. The guys with those AK47s and IEDs haven’t really fared too well, however. As for the OP, I’d say that it’s going to depend on the requirements as to whether we are spending too much or too little. With our current commitments and requirements we are spending too little, though as usual we are spending on the wrong things, at least IMHO. If we want to spend less then we need to reduce our commitments and narrow and focus our requirements as to what our military is and should be doing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-united-states-cut-or-increase-the-defense-budget/738512.md?page=3)