# 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:** 5
**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, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/81 "2010-10-09T07:54:23Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > > [@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. Obviously, I disagree. The US troops there take the odds of them being invaded by NK down from 0.3% to 0.1%, creates a special relationship with the US and injects a shitload of money into their economy. I can see why they like the arrangement. I don’t see how it benefits us. ---
**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, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/82 "2010-10-09T08:07:32Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > [QUOTE=Sevastopol] > An offense force would not be excluded from defensive duties as well and that would realize economies. What does that sentence mean? [/QUOTE] It’s been something like 28 posts, and I haven’t gotten an answer to this question. Probably it just got missed mixed in with all the other posts. ---
**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, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/83 "2010-10-09T08:42:27Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > 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. Do you think Belgians are going to send in tanks to keep Lithuania free? I don’t. If I’m wrong, well, it would be good for Belgium to have some tanks, no? One of the major reasons every NATO member save the UK and France (who is a NATO member _du jour_) doesn’t have anything other than a lightweight military is precisely because they figure we’ll foot the bill. When Russia was a credible threat, that was one thing. When we imagined our economy was an infinite money tree, that was another. Neither condition holds now. We are running out of money, and the defense budget has to be cut. Bringing troops home would save billions. We can leave some bases in Europe as staging points; hell we can leave a division’s worth of tanks there with staff to maintain them in readiness at a far lower cost than keeping their crews there. The EU has three times the population of Russia and seven times their GDP; the idea that Germany needs our defense against them is bullshit. > [@](#): > > 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. Homer’s brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts. Homer: Explain how! Homer’s brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services. Homer: Woo-hoo! > [@](#): > > 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. While those feelings are less strong in anyone under, say, 65, you are correct. I support the deployment of diplomats to facilitate discussion, soothe fears, I do not support the continued bankrupting of the United States. If that means a few elderly filipinos get antsy about the Japanese invading, it’s a price that must be paid. ---
**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, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/84 "2010-10-09T09:01:42Z")
[quote=“Camus, post:73, topic:556391”] 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. [QUOTE] Do you think Belgians are going to send in tanks to keep Lithuania free? I don’t. If I’m wrong, well, it would be good for Belgium to have some tanks, no? One of the major reasons every NATO member save the UK and France (who is a NATO member _du jour_) doesn’t have anything other than a lightweight military is precisely because they figure we’ll foot the bill. When Russia was a credible threat, that was one thing. When we imagined our economy was an infinite money tree, that was another. Neither condition holds now. We are running out of money, and the defense budget has to be cut. Bringing troops home would save billions. We can leave some bases in Europe as staging points; hell we can leave a division’s worth of tanks there with staff to maintain them in readiness at a far lower cost than keeping their crews there. The EU has three times the population of Russia and seven times their GDP; the idea that Germany needs our defense against them is bullshit. > [@](#): > > 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. Homer’s brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts. Homer: Explain how! Homer’s brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services. Homer: Woo-hoo! > [@](#): > > 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. While those feelings are less strong in anyone under, say, 65, you are correct. I support the deployment of diplomats to facilitate discussion, soothe fears, I do not support the continued bankrupting of the United States. If that means a few elderly filipinos get antsy about the Japanese invading, it’s a price that must be paid. ---
**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 9, 2010, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/85 "2010-10-09T10:42:48Z")
> [@furt](#): > > > [@Monty](#): > > > > Except that South Korea is currently convinced that they cannot, at the moment, defend themselves alone. > > Obviously, I disagree. > > The US troops there take the odds of them being invaded by NK down from 0.3% to 0.1%, creates a special relationship with the US and injects a shitload of money into their economy. I can see why they like the arrangement. I don’t see how it benefits us. 0.1%? You can’t be serious. I’d think the income from Korean goods exported would be the boatload of money injected into the Korean economy, what with those exports consisting of televisions, various other electronics, and automobiles, just to name a few. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/86 "2010-10-09T11:22:23Z")
> [@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. Oh I know, I meant abandon in terms of military/monetary support of any kind. I suppose I wasn’t clear. ---
**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, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/87 "2010-10-09T11:36:43Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > > [@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. > > Oh I know, I meant abandon in terms of military/monetary support of any kind. I suppose I wasn’t clear. Would that include selling stuff to willing buyers (as in, the willing buyers we’re willing to do business with?) So let’s say we don’t give Israel any missile defense batteries the next time a big war is brewing, could we still sell them some if they ponied up the Shekalim beforehand? ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/88 "2010-10-09T11:51:04Z")
Pax Americana approaches its end. The US can no longer afford to lord it over the rest of the world. American might staved off World War 3. American might still staves off the sorts of conflicts that tore Europe asunder in the 19th Century. Are the emerging powers of Asia, India, Brazil, Southeast Asia, etc. ready to play nice in the nuclear age? Are China and Russia ready to play fair with the rest of the world without the bloated US millitary looming? Are the EU and the UN ready to take over the responsibility of keeping the lid on? The US can no longer answer these questions by itself. The US military budget is not a matter of debate, in my estimation. It is unsustainable, and unjustified. ---
**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 9, 2010, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/89 "2010-10-09T12:03:45Z")
I don’t believe that there is any “Pax Americana” in the first place. IMHO, to the extent that there are fewer wars of conquest these days, it’s because wars are no longer as profitable as they once were. Just look at America versus Iraq, the war we were told would pay for itself. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/90 "2010-10-09T12:13:13Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > 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. Actually, I’m pretty sure I would be considered an expert in the field of budgeting for our national security apparatus, and I ain’t so bad in the law of it, either. I can actually tell you quite a bit about how defense spending is accounted for. Do you have specific questions about the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system that, among other things, generates the program objective memorandum and future years defense plan? Or are you more concerned about the viability of the various and sundry financial systems and their ability to meet the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990? The proposal is nonsense because it attempts to create a distinction between two types of armed forces when the difference is so trivial, that there is no reason to believe there could ever be an objective measure that would constrain government leaders on what is the “good” military and what is the “bad” military. To leaders, the “good” military is whatever they want it to be, and the “bad” military does not exist. ---
**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, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/91 "2010-10-09T12:45:44Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Monty](#): > > > [@furt](#): > > > > Obviously, I disagree. > > > > The US troops there take the odds of them being invaded by NK down from 0.3% to 0.1%, creates a special relationship with the US and injects a shitload of money into their economy. I can see why they like the arrangement. I don’t see how it benefits us. > > 0.1%? You can’t be serious. Eh, maybe 0.3%. > [@](#): > > I’d think the income from Korean goods exported would be the boatload of money injected into the Korean economy, what with those exports consisting of televisions, various other electronics, and automobiles, just to name a few. Countries only have one source of income at a time? ---
**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, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/92 "2010-10-09T12:59:33Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > > [@Raguleader](#): > > > > What does that sentence mean? > > It’s been something like 28 posts, and I haven’t gotten an answer to this question. Probably it just got missed mixed in with all the other posts. Post 79 ---
**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, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/93 "2010-10-09T13:10:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Actually, I’m pretty sure I would be considered an expert in the field of budgeting for our national security apparatus, and I ain’t so bad in the law of it, either. I can actually tell you quite a bit about how defense spending is accounted for. Do you have specific questions about the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system that, among other things, generates the program objective memorandum and future years defense plan? Or are you more concerned about the viability of the various and sundry financial systems and their ability to meet the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990? > > The proposal is nonsense because it attempts to create a distinction between two types of armed forces when the difference is so trivial, that there is no reason to believe there could ever be an objective measure that would constrain government leaders on what is the “good” military and what is the “bad” military. To leaders, the “good” military is whatever they want it to be, and the “bad” military does not exist. Well, if we are going to go down the argument from authority route … Actually, no we are not. Instead I humbly submit there is a clear distinction, not in the least trivial, between offensive action and defense. One that ordinary people appreciate every day, with no difficulty at all. There is no need to confuse what is well understood with a discussion of good and bad. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/94 "2010-10-09T14:32:20Z")
Perhaps the mere existence of large U.S. armed forces means that nations that are quite happily plodding along today without any aspirations to expand stay that way. But without a nation with a big stick perhaps the Russians and the Chinese might start getting it into their heads that what have they to lose if they annex a few of their neighbours? And even if they fail in the attempt it probably won’t cost them too dearly. The state of the world today, good and bad, is largely as a result of the existing balance of power. And a large part of that is down to the U.S. If the U.S. bows out then it won’t be long before someone else decides to take advantage of the situation and they might not be so benevelont in outlook. A quick aside when comparing cost you are not comparing like with like. The cost of living in say China, (plus the standard of living) is significantly lower then that of Western nations, so that where an American worker gets paid ten times Y an hour to produce bullets a Chinese worker gets paid one Y an hour to do the same job. So you have the choice of either buying your arms and ammunition from a potential enemy, or reducing the lifestyle (and cost of living ) of your own workers to that of a Chinese (or Outer Otherterrasian) worker to reduce your arms spending. Or you accept the price you’re paying now. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/95 "2010-10-09T15:52:01Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > If we keep our navy down to say, double or triple the combined strenghth of say, Russia and China, then I suspect we could respond to any increases in their naval spending by building up our own strengh in plenty of time to make sure we stay ahead. Your analysis is flawed in that you are comparing 1:1, and you dont allow for any surprises. Not if China, Russia, and India team up against us and deliver a surprise first strike that disables half of our navy. For example, if we had only fought Japan in WW2 (and not Italy, Germany, Finland, etc) and if there had never been a surprise attack on our battleships at Pearl Harbor, then things would not have looked so bleak in December 1941. We have to always be much better than the combined strength of any potential grouping of axis enemy forces, esp after they deliver a very damaging first strike against us. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/96 "2010-10-09T17:26:06Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Instead I humbly submit there is a clear distinction, not in the least trivial, between offensive action and defense. One that ordinary people appreciate every day, with no difficulty at all. There is no need to confuse what is well understood with a discussion of good and bad. I’m curious, would you label these as offensive or defensive? Israel bombs Osirak Firebombing of Tokyo Nuclear missile submarines US base in Iraq takes mortar fire from nearby hill, conducts raid on hill that night Navy delivers shipment of ammunition to Afghanistan Navy sinks Somali pirate ship ---
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/97 "2010-10-09T17:44:50Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#): > > > [@Sevastopol](#): > > > > Instead I humbly submit there is a clear distinction, not in the least trivial, between offensive action and defense. One that ordinary people appreciate every day, with no difficulty at all. There is no need to confuse what is well understood with a discussion of good and bad. > > I’m curious, would you label these as offensive or defensive? > > Israel bombs Osirak > Firebombing of Tokyo > Nuclear missile submarines > US base in Iraq takes mortar fire from nearby hill, conducts raid on hill that night > Navy delivers shipment of ammunition to Afghanistan > Navy sinks Somali pirate ship 1 - O 2 - D but not proportionate 3 - N/A not action 4 - O 5 - O 6 - need more facts ---
**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 9, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/98 "2010-10-09T18:00:31Z")
> [@furt](#): > > > [@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. Amen to that. ---
**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 9, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/99 "2010-10-09T18:05:09Z")
> [@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. Did that US radar facility in the Negev ever get built? ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391/100 "2010-10-09T18:45:34Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > > [@Raguleader](#): > > > > It’s been something like 28 posts, and I haven’t gotten an answer to this question. Probably it just got missed mixed in with all the other posts. > > Post 79 Post 79 didn’t answer my question, it just repeated the phrase that I didn’t understand the first time. Explain what that phrase means? Because, for all the years I’ve spent in school, I can’t figure out for the life of me what it’s trying so hard to say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bloated-us-military/556391.md?page=6)