The US defense budget

[mlees]

I remember all the finger pointing when our guys deployed without body armor, or unarmored humvees. That stuff ain’t free.

[shiftless]

@xtisme

Granted, even fewer US troops would have been killed if we never went into any of those places, but if we HAVE to go into them isn’t it a comfort that our equipment gives us such an overwhelming advantage??

-XT

I agree. Unfortunately, taking the sting out of wars seems to make us even more willing to get involved in them. Every generation has to learn the hard way that people get killed in wars. Our military is so overwhelming now that it takes even longer for the message to sink in. “What? I thought only bad guys got killed in wars!”

Also, besides those killed we have a huge number of other casualties that don’t get talked about. These are men and women who survive combat, perhaps because of the superior equipment and training, but who are so injured as to need a lifetime of support. We owe those men and women that support but we don’t recognize the expense involved until it is too late.

I can’t speak for others but when I talk about reducing the defense budget, I am not talking about asking soldiers to do more with less. I am talking about revaluating our commitments and asking if some of them are worth the cost. I don’t think some of our commitments are worth a plug nickel. For example, I don’t think what we have gotten out of South Korea is worth the expense of a full US division, and all that entails, for 60 years.

[Dissonance]

@Cheesesteak

Yeah, and they can pony up 5% of their economy, just like we do, even though we are at no risk of invasion. Just because their interests are a bit less varied (keep crazy man from Best Korea on THAT side of the line) it does not mean they don’t have a responsibility to adequately defend themselves.I don’t know how long, but if these countries aren’t going to put up as much of their economy for defense as we do handing out military welfare, they can fucking join Hong Kong and Macau for all I care.

You are sorely misinformed if you actually think that South Korea is not taking responsibility to adequately defend themselves. Again, the idea that the US is footing the bill for South Korea’s defense is simply not true. This is what they get for ‘only’ spending 2.7% of their GDP instead of ‘ponying up’ 5%. In quick summation, 653,000 active forces and 3,200,000 regular reserves, an army with 11 corps, 49 divisions, and 19 brigades and 2,872 tanks including 1,524 K1 and K1A1 tanks, a locally developed tank comparable to the US M1. It is one of the largest armies in the world and maintains this through universal conscription. All that your argument does is suggest that the US is either inefficient or overspending with 5% of its GDP. Of course, as has already been pointed out, the reason the US is spending more of its GDP is that it has military interests throughout the world.

Frankly the whole ‘our allies are freeloading’ meme that goes back to the Cold War has mostly been a load of shit that collapses under any scrutiny.

[Ravenman]

@Dissonance

Frankly the whole ‘our allies are freeloading’ meme that goes back to the Cold War has mostly been a load of shit that collapses under any scrutiny.

How so?

Take the war in Libya for example. It seems clear from what I have read that our NATO allies would be unable to sustain those military operations without US support for logistics, refueling, and intelligence. There was quite a bit of news last year that defense cuts in Britain would make them unable to sustain deployments to Afghanistan. The European civilian head of NATO seems to be calling out individual countries for failing to budget 2% of their GDP to meet NATO military commitments. Right now, the US alone allegedly is responsible for 75% of NATO’s military spending.

That doesn’t seem like “a load of shit collapsing under any scrutiny.”

Or are you saying that the civilian leadership of NATO doesn’t scrutinize anything?

[Dissonance]

I’m saying none of that falls into the category of freeloading to begin with. The US has as much of a stake in Libya as our NATO allies. They would not be able to sustain those military operations is vastly different than they would not be able to sustain military operations, period. The US unsurprisingly has the best logistical and aerial refueling capabilities in the world. It has them because it has global commitments and needs the ability to move troops and conduct operations far from its shore. Is it any wonder that the best assets for the job are used? Regarding Britain and Afghanistan, has Britain been unable to sustain its deployments? When it actually doesn’t, then it will be a legitimate gripe. Consider for a moment what you are complaining about anyway. In response to an attack on the US, the UK has committed troops to Afghanistan for 10 years. The US is now in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan. Do you really consider talk that defense budget cuts might lead to Britain not being able to sustain deployment to be freeloading? Mere talk of it after a decade of deployment and casualties?

I’m sorry, but yes, that is a load of shit that collapses under scrutiny. There were constant uninformed complaints during the Cold War about the US bearing the burden of defending Europe and NATO freeloading off of American taxpayer’s dollars. Bear in mind that unlike the US, almost all NATO nations were using conscription.

[John_Mace]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

I like that idea. Let’s pack up and go home, tell everybody that we’re out of business, and worry about what’s at home.

That is the long term goal. We have allies in Europe and Asia, and they can defend themselves. If they want mutual defense treaties, that’s fine. But they’re rich and they shouldn’t need one penny from us.

Two things will happen:

1. Countries like North Korea will be eternally grateful for our withdrawal, because it will make their invasions that much easier.

Nope. NK isn’t going to invade SK as long as SK is so much richer and has its own defense. As I said above, a mutual defense treaty is fine. We (and our other allies) can have bombers over NK in a matter of hours if need be.

2. Countries like South Korea and Taiwan, where we get a significant percentage of our imported goods, will be stomped into the ground, which will help our domestic markets to an incredible degree. We’ll be able to hire millions of people at great wage levels because they’ll be the only game in town. The UAW would be eternally grateful if we did this.

See above re: SK. See Hong Kong re: Taiwan.

OK, I’m done being sarcastic. Yes, we need to cut spending. Yes, we can certainly make do with a smaller force. Yes, we can spend less on equipping the military with weapons and protective gear. Yes, we can stop engaging in wars that seem to have no purpose.

But let’s not pretend that such actions won’t have adverse consequences. They will. And when the first US soldier dies because they don’t have “proper” protective equipment, there will be screaming and rending of garments across the country.

I never said we should skimp on protective equipment. We should have the absolute best military in the world. Just a smaller one.

Same for when things get more expensive, or when a country that we previously supported becomes enmeshed in a war that they cannot possibly win. Hell, we got bitched at for not going into Darfur. Imagine what happens when the artillery shells begin falling on Seoul.

Imagine what? If shells start falling on Seoul, that’s an issue for NK and SK. We can respond immediately and effectively to an attack on Seoul, if we need or want to. The comparison to Darfur is ludicrous. We don’t have an effective means of intervening in that situation without essentially taking over the country.

[gonzomax]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Actually, we need more sophisticated arms and expensive weaponry so that we can minimize our own casualties. Somewhere along the way the US public decided that even a single casualty was unacceptable, so we’ve been spending a considerable amount of money on equipment to reduce the number.

IMHO, that’s part of why people in the US sometimes seem so keen to go to war, because so much of it is detached, what with bombing from drones, guided cruise missiles, MRAPs and the like. They forget that real people die in military actions because it’s so easy to do.

As far as “doing badly” goes, it’s worth noting that we essentially conquered 2 countries and suffered only slightly more than 5,000 killed through the entire 10 years of occupation, less than 10% of the deaths in Vietnam, about 10% of the deaths in Korea, and less than 2% of the deaths in WWII. If you throw enough money at anything you’ll probably get results, and that’s what we do, from the military to schools to healthcare. It’s easier than handing a widow a freshly folded flag.

Iraq was not a war. But we fought for a decade. Iraq has no airforce and we bombed at will. We sent in unarmed drones . but
Iraq Americans killed 4400 seriously injured 32,000
coalition troops 318 2,300
contractors 1000 11,000
Afghanustan
americans 1140 3400
coalition 800 2300
contractors 300 2400
8000 dead and 53,000 seriously injured.
Our actions were responsible fot all of these.

[Cheesesteak]

@Dissonance

You are sorely misinformed if you actually think that South Korea is not taking responsibility to adequately defend themselves. Again, the idea that the US is footing the bill for South Korea’s defense is simply not true. This is what they get for ‘only’ spending 2.7% of their GDP instead of ‘ponying up’ 5%. In quick summation, 653,000 active forces and 3,200,000 regular reserves, an army with 11 corps, 49 divisions, and 19 brigades and 2,872 tanks including 1,524 K1 and K1A1 tanks, a locally developed tank comparable to the US M1. It is one of the largest armies in the world and maintains this through universal conscription.

Sounds wonderful. If they are “adequately” defending themselves, then we don’t need to be there, do we? Is it OK if we go home now, and save a few billions of dollars a year? A few billion here, a few billion there, it starts to add up.

All that your argument does is suggest that the US is either inefficient or overspending with 5% of its GDP. Of course, as has already been pointed out, the reason the US is spending more of its GDP is that it has military interests throughout the world.

I have no problem admitting that the US may be inefficient or overspending. As has also been pointed out, perhaps our military interests are a bit overly broad, and we can consider curtailing some of these expensive programs.