# The bloated US military **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 7, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391 "2010-10-07T18:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/61 "2010-10-08T20:03:07Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > > [@Monty](#): > > > > Really, now? Care to back up that assertion? Oh, nice–and inane–swipe at the intelligence of military personnel. > > Wikipedia’s pages on [the](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army) [two](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_armed_forces). The standing army of North Korea is 1.1mil personnel, as opposed to 680,000 personnel in the ROK’s military. Their respective budgets, however, are a very different story: $6bil versus $27bil. Also, you can subtract the personnel and expense of North Korea’s artillery forces —they’re for destroying Seoul, not actual military targets, and aren’t necessarily even mobile. Add onto that the likely air superiority that the South Koreans would enjoy, the malnutrition of even soldiers in the DPRK, and… well, you get the picture. > > The “military men” was sarcasm —my point was not that people in the US or Korean armed forces are stupid (they aren’t), it was that to think they wouldn’t know the balance of military power between the DPRK and ROK assumes them to be _completely brainless_. WTF? Seoul isn’t an actual military target? Do you really not know anything at all about this particular country or its foe? And there really is quite a difference between the economic systems of the two Koreas. Not everyone in North Korea is starving. Care to guess who’s getting the majority of the food there? ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/62 "2010-10-08T20:08:10Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@Dcypher](#): > > > > Why do we keep US troops all over the world? Would we not benefit ourselves by simply emptying Germany and England and everywhere else of US troops? > > > > Do we really need 12 aircraft carrier battlegroups? > > If we want to have the strongest military in the world and play empire, yes. We could do it with 8 or 9. > [@](#): > > > [@Dcypher](#): > > > > What will it take to reign in the military establishment? > > Probably a general collapse of the country due to the sheer expense of it all. Our collective ego won’t let us admit that playing empire like we do is stupid and self destructive. Rather like what happened to Britain, who held onto their empire long after it made any sense. We could tell the branches of the military they can keep half of what they cut and you would see the military drop most of their weapons systems. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/63 "2010-10-08T20:09:35Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@Dcypher](#): > > > > Why do we keep US troops all over the world? Would we not benefit ourselves by simply emptying Germany and England and everywhere else of US troops? > > > > Do we really need 12 aircraft carrier battlegroups? > > > > What will it take to reign in the military establishment? > > We answered that pretty well in [this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=558847) Perhaps the best answer was given by **emacknight** : > > > [@emacknight](#): > > > > The sad reality is that military spending has become an entitlement program, spread out over every congressional district in the US. > > > > Ammo, guns, trucks, uniforms, tanks, planes, bombs, and missiles are line items on a spread sheet that each correlate to a specific town some where in Middle America. > > > > To cut any one of those means going into a town and telling them you’re about to cut their only source of income. Good luck with that. > > > > To make things worse, as the cost of equipment increased, they started spreading around the wealth. Now a bomber has a component built in just about every state. Trying to cut the program means convincing essentially every Congressmen and Senator that their town is about to lose it’s only source of income. > > > > The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan meant a huge build up of federal funds flowing into these towns. And now you want them to stop building what ever it is they build? No chance in hell. You’re more likely to see two new wars created as a replacement than you are to have that funding cut off. > > I’m sure you’ve heard about the ‘bridge to nowhere’. The U. S. Military is the military to nowhere, that has hundreds of bases to nowhere, fights wars to nowhere, and spends hundreds of billions per year on planes to nowhere, ships to nowhere, and so forth. Shit, you’d think we’d at least take over Canada and mexico and expand our borders. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/64 "2010-10-08T20:13:08Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > > [@code\_grey](#): > > > > it’s not bloated because it is too big. It is bloated because it is too inefficient. Too little bang for the buck, but more than enough lawyers, excessive prices for supplies, exorbitant health care costs, social engineering, minority empowerment, doomed R&D projects like anti-missile defense and other such junk. > > Social engineering? Minority empowerment? WTF are you talking about here? Well I hear they let blacks in the military now and a while back they even made one a general but then he endorsed a black presidential candidate and everyone saw him for the racist that he was. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/65 "2010-10-08T21:15:43Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > > [@furt](#): > > > > But that only begs the question of why keep getting ourselves into said alliances and treaties in the first place. There’s no denying that the US currently has our finger in every pie on the planet and that we can’t unilaterally cancel it all and go home tomorrow; I think the OP is rather asking why we can’t move toward a future in which more of these things are not our problem. e.g. Russia cutting off gas to Europe can be something Europe deals with. > > I understand your point but what do we do, leave NATO? Go into complete isolationist status, abandon Israel, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and everywhere else where there’s a mutual interest in our presence being there? It would allow for too much hegemony on the part of regimes that are far worse than ours. It would make the world a worse place, not a better one. > > It might be better in the short term for the USA, but not for the world at large. My gut reaction is, in order: Maybe, No, Yes, Yes, No. The Maybe is for NATO, which, in 2010, is mostly pointless. Russia is no threat to invade Western Europe, and even if they were, Western Europe are big boys and can grow up and defend themselves. The countries that are threatened by a militant Russia are not going to be defended by anyone other than the US and maybe the UK. I’d keep NATO as a possibly useful tool, but I’d pull most of our troops out of Europe. The Yeses are for Korea and Japan, independent nations that can defend themselves. I wouldn’t say “abandon” them, but I don’t think the world’s third-biggest economy is some fragile flower that can’t defend itself. Maintain alliances, yes, but they don’t need large numbers of troops. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/66 "2010-10-08T21:30:17Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > It would allow for too much hegemony on the part of regimes that are far worse than ours. I see no reason to buy that, given how we’ve behaved. We’ve cheerfully propped up incredibly nasty regimes - or imposed them, trained torturers for those regimes, attacked nations that were no threat to us, slaughtered huge numbers of people and devastated their homelands. Barring a new Nazi regime appearing somewhere I don’t see any nation out there with worse behavior towards others than we have demonstrated. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/67 "2010-10-08T22:01:23Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The Maybe is for NATO, which, in 2010, is mostly pointless. Russia is no threat to invade Western Europe, and even if they were, Western Europe are big boys and can grow up and defend themselves. The countries that are threatened by a militant Russia are not going to be defended by anyone other than the US and maybe the UK. I’d keep NATO as a possibly useful tool, but I’d pull most of our troops out of Europe. The Nato arrangement is why there are troops from all over Europe in Afghanistan. Y’know, going to the aid of a member who has been attacked? Some are more engaged than others, but it really looks like a bunch of ungrateful shit when someone posts guff like this. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/68 "2010-10-08T22:13:43Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The Yeses are for Korea and Japan, independent nations that can defend themselves. Except that South Korea is currently convinced that they cannot, at the moment, defend themselves alone. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/69 "2010-10-08T22:36:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well I hear they let blacks in the military now and a while back they even made one a general but then he endorsed a black presidential candidate and everyone saw him for the racist that he was. If by ‘now’ you mean ‘[since the republic was founded](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans#Revolutionary_War),’ sure. I’m guessing you don’t mean [Benjamin Oliver Davis Sr.](http://www.history.army.mil/html/topics/afam/davis.html) when referring to making one a general, FDR wasn’t black. There have been quite a few black generals since 1940. It might surprise you but the military was [desegregated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans#Integration_of_the_armed_forces) [before](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Chicago_Defender_July_31_1948.jpg) the country was. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/70 "2010-10-08T22:41:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Hey, better to have 12 carrier groups and not need 'em than to need 12 carrier groups and not have 'em. [Opportunity cost](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost). ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/71 "2010-10-08T23:49:51Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I understand your point but what do we do, leave NATO? Go into complete isolationist status, abandon Israel, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and everywhere else where there’s a mutual interest in our presence being there? It would allow for too much hegemony on the part of regimes that are far worse than ours. It would make the world a worse place, not a better one. > > It might be better in the short term for the USA, but not for the world at large. Just a minor correction - there is no U.S. presence in or around Israel, nor has there ever been. Weapons, yes, but never any actual troops. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/72 "2010-10-08T23:56:11Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > > > I understand your point but what do we do, leave NATO? Go into complete isolationist status, abandon Israel, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and everywhere else where there’s a mutual interest in our presence being there? It would allow for too much hegemony on the part of regimes that are far worse than ours. It would make the world a worse place, not a better one. > > > > It might be better in the short term for the USA, but not for the world at large. > > Just a minor correction - there is no U.S. presence in or around Israel, nor has there ever been. Weapons, yes, but never any actual troops. Well, there was that one time in Beirut. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/73 "2010-10-09T00:50:44Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The Maybe is for NATO, which, in 2010, is mostly pointless. Russia is no threat to invade Western Europe, and even if they were, Western Europe are big boys and can grow up and defend themselves. The countries that are threatened by a militant Russia are not going to be defended by anyone other than the US and maybe the UK. Western Europe is not threatened militarily by Russia, but much of Eastern Europe is part of NATO too. The Baltic states, given their small size and population, are particularly vulnerable. NATO, as both an idea and a credible force, cannot exist without a military component. Since France, the UK, and the US are the only members of NATO who have the logistical equipment and support to transport more than a few thousand troops outside of their own borders, withdrawing all US troops from Europe would signal that the US is abandoning NATO. > [@](#): > > The Yeses are for Korea and Japan, independent nations that can defend themselves. I wouldn’t say “abandon” them, but I don’t think the world’s third-biggest economy is some fragile flower that can’t defend itself. Maintain alliances, yes, but they don’t need large numbers of troops. Japan’s self-defense forces, despite being relatively well-funded and well equipped, are still pretty limited. They have one or two helicopter carriers, but they don’t have any aircraft carriers, air refueling tankers, dedicated bombers, the total number of fighters they have is less than 400 (compared to thousands for China and several hundred for North Korea), and their troop transport capability is also very limited. All of this means that if a conflict broke out on or near Okinawa - which besides it’s outlying islands is the closest Japanese territory to China - Japan would be hard-pressed to adequately respond with anything other than the forces already in Okinawa. To change that situation, Japan would have to significantly boost its defense spending and enlarge its self-defense forces. Many Asian countries who were victims of Japanese occupation in WWII aren’t too keen to see that happen. For all its warts, they and a significant number of Japanese, prefer a US presence in Japan to that alternative. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/74 "2010-10-09T01:48:28Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I wonder what would happen if China and the DPRK colluded to strike at our allies simultaneously, like say, the DPRK launches an attack against South Korea while at the same time China invades Taiwan. What then? WHat if while that happened we were still involved in Afghanistan. And then also Iran attacked Israel? What about the Russians? Does anyone truly believe that they are really our true ally? What if amidst all this they decide to cut off all their natural gas to all the parts of Europe that depend on it in the middle of winter? > > The USA for good or ill has a huge military. We have misused it in the past, but under a scenario such as I described, it can (and would) be used for good again defending our allies, ourselves, our interests and honoring our treaties. So while the misuse of the military is deeply regrettable, I’d rather have it than not. China was a pretty poor and backwards country not long ago. Our military experts felt secure because we were so much richer and more powerful than our communist threat. Between Cuba and China, they could not muster up much of a danger. But our corporations saw a place to make a lot of money. The fact that they were making our mortal communist enemies rich and powerful did not matter. It was greed. But if we are at war with Communism. they are much more powerful now. We can thank our greedy money masters who made America much less safe ,so they themselves could get richer. Apparently patriotism is for the poor and foolish. How could we do the Arsenal of Democracy thing ,that saved us in WW2? China could move easily to military industrial construction. It would take us a long time to respond. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/75 "2010-10-09T03:11:00Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > > > I wonder what would happen if China and the DPRK colluded to strike at our allies simultaneously, like say, the DPRK launches an attack against South Korea while at the same time China invades Taiwan. What then? WHat if while that happened we were still involved in Afghanistan. And then also Iran attacked Israel? What about the Russians? Does anyone truly believe that they are really our true ally? What if amidst all this they decide to cut off all their natural gas to all the parts of Europe that depend on it in the middle of winter? > > > > The USA for good or ill has a huge military. We have misused it in the past, but under a scenario such as I described, it can (and would) be used for good again defending our allies, ourselves, our interests and honoring our treaties. So while the misuse of the military is deeply regrettable, I’d rather have it than not. > > China was a pretty poor and backwards country not long ago. Our military experts felt secure because we were so much richer and more powerful than our communist threat. Between Cuba and China, they could not muster up much of a danger. But our corporations saw a place to make a lot of money. The fact that they were making our mortal communist enemies rich and powerful did not matter. It was greed. But if we are at war with Communism. they are much more powerful now. We can thank our greedy money masters who made America much less safe ,so they themselves could get richer. Apparently patriotism is for the poor and foolish. > How could we do the Arsenal of Democracy thing ,that saved us in WW2? China could move easily to military industrial construction. It would take us a long time to respond. How is it communism anymore if the capitalists have taken over? I think you underestimate this nations warmongers. We produce enough bullets every year to kill every man woman and child in the WORLD twice. Year in and year out. The Chinese would have to spend 15% of their GDP just to maintain the sort of military we have. If they wanted to match our Navy it would empty their coffers. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/76 "2010-10-09T05:57:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@Alessan](#): > > > > Just a minor correction - there is no U.S. presence in or around Israel, nor has there ever been. Weapons, yes, but never any actual troops. > > Well, there was that one time in Beirut. I think they were there as peacekeepers or something. Actually, I have no idea what the U.S. military was doing in Beirut, besides getting blown up. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/77 "2010-10-09T06:58:06Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I wonder what would happen if China and the DPRK colluded to strike at our allies simultaneously, like say, the DPRK launches an attack against South Korea while at the same time China invades Taiwan. What then? WHat if while that happened we were still involved in Afghanistan. And then also Iran attacked Israel? What about the Russians? Does anyone truly believe that they are really our true ally? What if amidst all this they decide to cut off all their natural gas to all the parts of Europe that depend on it in the middle of winter? The nuclear missiles are already paid for. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/78 "2010-10-09T06:58:55Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think you underestimate this nations warmongers. We produce enough bullets every year to kill every man woman and child in the WORLD twice. Year in and year out. I seem to recall reading somewhere that it takes, on average, something in the neighborhood of a quarter million bullets fired to kill a single person. Are we presuming that Deadshot is the one firing these bullets in coming up with your figure? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/79 "2010-10-09T07:12:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Ultimately, word games on policy – whether it’s offensive vs defensive military forces, pro-choice or pro-life, etc. – are bullshit. The policy matters, and policy isn’t dictated by nomenclature. Of course the proposal is not policy neutral. There is a strong argument that any US offense force budget should rest steadily at zero. You are underestimating the power of law and accounting over government action. Currently defense is the only area of expense which is not properly accounted for and permitted to indulge in the very opposite - offense. It is no better and probably worse than using tax revenue for champagne, hookers, blow and the casino. I realize these dry arguments about accounting are not the stuff of exciting debate, but the anomaly of ‘defense’ is worth a comment. _“An offense force would not be excluded from defensive duties as well…”_ offense forces would take part in wars of defense. _“…and that would realize economies.”_ So, there are not 2 stand-alone militaries. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/80 "2010-10-09T07:47:12Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > The Nato arrangement is why there are troops from all over Europe in Afghanistan. Y’know, going to the aid of a member who has been attacked? Some are more engaged than others, but it really looks like a bunch of ungrateful shit when someone posts guff like this. I’m entirely grateful; it’s just I’d just as soon none of us were in Afghanistan. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391.md?page=5)