Don’t be so sure. When I was working in the aerospace industry, espionage by the Chinese was the #1 threat.
Canada is part of NATO.
That the U.S. would come to the aid of places like Canada and Australia doesn’t necessarily mean that a specific expenditure exists, though. You would be hard pressed to find a dime of U.S. military spending that has ever been marginally incurred to defend Canada; I guess you could say there’s NORAD, but that’s meant to defend the USA just as much as Canada and is jointly paid for. Indeed, I could make a pretty strong case that Canada has spent more to defend the USA (Afghanistan War) than vice versa. Same for Australia; there aren’t any big US bases there I know of, no U.S. military aid funneled in. The U.S. doesn’t “back” those countries with anything except its word and the extant military might it would have even if Australia and Canada sank into the ocean.
South Korea does indeed require a substantial outlay of U.S. funds to help defend, so there you would have to make a cost/benefit analysis of reducing that capability. But there’s no U.S. capability assigned to defending Canada, or Australia, or for that matter the UK, so on and so forth. Who the heck is the U.S. defending Mexico from, and with what? And one could pretty seriously question how much defending Europe needs now.
No, but plenty of dimes have been spent making sure we could defend Canada if need be. While it would be difficult to divide force projection ability into tabs for specific countries, it is something the US has spent money on at least in part for the ability to defend our allies. I would assume as drastic of a cut as some are talking about would significantly impact our ability to assist Canada and all those other nations.
And thanks for clarification on Canada and NATO. I forgot they were in it. When I posted that list, I also forgot about anzus, which covers Australia and adds New Zealand to the list. Good thing I CYA with the weasel words ‘off the top of my head’…
I’m in the camp that it’s nice, but doesn’t go far enough. It’s not like the bulk of military spending has anything to do with defending the US anyway. Of curse, the righties will say that cutting military spending will “put Americans in danger,” but that’s a crock of shit and always has been.
Well, $78 billion over 5 years seems a drop in the bucket to me, but ok…I’m cool with such cuts to our military budget. Will we be seeing similar cuts on the social program side of the house as well? Heck, I’m good with $78 billion per year cuts to the military, if we can also be assured of similar cuts across the board. I will await such across the board cuts with bated breath and hopeful anticipation…
-XT
Social programs need to be jacked up, not cut. They’re a pittance as it is.
Ah…well, you see, that’s the problem, isn’t it? Everyone thinks their pet project or cause needs to be jacked up while others programs suffer budget cuts. And so, we are back to square one…or, back to Obama (or whoever) making purely symbolic and meaningless cuts that are there simply to look good for the cameras.
-XT
We can all argue until we are blue in the face about social programs need of cutting. It is my belief that they should be but it is not pertinent to this discussion.
My question (taken from wiki) is this:
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%
Of the some 1.1 Trillion dollar budget they have, why do they make cuts to personnel? Why would they not cut R&D, or Procurement?
How much is the cost of Iraq alone? If we bring home the troops, how much will we save, right off the bat?
Add to this (not a pittance, some cuts to some of the more inane social spending we have) and we will have some real productive measures made toward getting to a balanced budget and stop the deficit spending.
[QUOTE=Kearsen]
Of the some 1.1 Trillion dollar budget they have, why do they make cuts to personnel? Why would they not cut R&D, or Procurement?
[/QUOTE]
Because personnel cuts are always easier. You don’t usually want to cut R&D since that is what develops the weapons systems that keeps our military on the cutting edge. As for procurement, a lot of those programs are multi-year contracts for one thing. However, more realistically, many procurements are multi-state affairs, and cutting them tends to piss off the congressmen and senators from the affected states…which tends to mean that, realistically, it’s as hard to get those cuts as for DtC to agree to cut those social programs.
Boatloads. What would you suggest we do at this point?
Since we can’t just do that, it’s not really a realistic question. However, assuming we could start a full scale pull out right now, it would probably cost us more in the short term, but in the medium and long term we’d certainly save money. Let’s get started.
Sure…if we could actually make those cuts and stick with them. Unfortunately, in the real world of American politics, getting anything cut substantially is practically impossible. Oh, you can make symbolic cuts like those in the OP…but $80 billion over 5 years is a pittance, and isn’t going to make any substantial difference to anything.
-XT
Because technology and manufacturing need to advance even if we don’t need them right now. In other words, if you cut R&D and procurement, then defense contractors won’t have high-tech weapons to sell when a war rolls around and they won’t have enough manufacturing capacity to meet our demand. In theory.
It’s a question of simple math. Social programs are a negligible percentage of discretionary spending. Even if you eliminated all of it, it would make very little difference to the deficit. Defense takes up a massive percentage of the budget and most of it is superfluous.
Besides, what social programs do you want to cut? We barely have any as it is.
Well, the House Republicans want to cut $100 billion from domestic, non-defense spending in one year, and then freeze that spending for some amount of time. That would amount to several hundreds of billions of dollars cut from the domestic side of the house in the same time period.
Actually, I think it is because small personnel cuts add up to bigger dollars than anything else. Cuts to personnel mean less need for pay, housing, health care, education benefits, operation and maintenance, equipment, travel, PCS moving expenses, training, etc etc. Furthermore, it’s cheaper to start recruiting more people than it is to go back and buy new equipment. It may take, say, 18 months to train a soldier in some important skill, but it can take many years to reconstitute the ability to manufacture some big weapons system.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Well, the House Republicans want to cut $100 billion from domestic, non-defense spending in one year, and then freeze that spending for some amount of time. That would amount to several hundreds of billions of dollars cut from the domestic side of the house in the same time period.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said, I’m good with that. I’m perfectly willing (not that anyone that matters is actually asking me) to make substantial cuts to the military, as long as the same levels of cuts are also effected in other sectors of the budget. $100 billion a year would be marvelous.
Sure, there are lots of reasons that cuts to personnel add up. It’s easy to do as well, since really all you have to do is tighten up recruiting and give less incentives for current personnel to re-up when their tours are ending. It’s one of the places there is enough slack in the system for that you can make the cuts pretty painlessly and without a lot of political flack. It generally flies right under the radar in fact.
-XT
Do we really need to give 19 year olds, $20,000 to play xbox360, party, and pretend to be in a war, just because they were in Afghanistan while they were doing it?
I don’t really understand the quid pro quo here. If the right level of military cuts was, say, $100 million, why does that become automatically the right level of cuts in social programs? Maybe social programs should grow, maybe they should be cut half as much, maybe they should be cut twice as much. I don’t understand the equivalency you’re drawing.
Because the ‘right level’ of cuts is going to always be purely subjective, and is probably not going to come from the proponents of the program being cut. For instance, I have no doubts that there are many people who would think ‘the right level’ of cuts to the military is negative $100 billion (i.e. they really need to grow, not be cut), while $100 billion a year to the various social programs out there would be hopelessly too little…and vice versa. I don’t know what the appropriate levels of cut would be, since we are simply lumping stuff together (the ‘military budget’ is vastly complex and has many aspects, including bundling our current wars into that mish mash), I was merely saying that something substantial cut would be better than nothing. When they pay me to work out the actual budgets for the US across the board I’ll get back to you with more meaningful specifics. 
-XT
OK, thanks!
There’s parties in Afghanistan?! I really wish someone would tell the Taliban that we’re partying over there because then maybe our boys will stop being blown up.
Cutting military spending? Remember what was said about the last Dem President who did that? Any doubt we’ll hear it again in 2012?
Maybe I didn’t explain this fully enough. Military spending was supposed to grow by roughly 3 or 4 percent each year for the next five years, over inflation. That rate of growth is being reduced by a total of $78 billion over the next five years. The defense budget is not going down in any of those years, it is only the rate of the increase is going to be slowed.
On the domestic side, Republicans want to actually cut $100 billion from domestic programs, and then pretty much freeze growth after that. It’s an open question on whether they will succeed.
So, it breaks down like this: defense “cuts” are only cuts in terms of growth in the future years. Domestic cuts are actual cuts that would lower government services and employment in this and every future year. It isn’t on the same footing at all.