The Best Offense Is A Cheaper Defense

• Footwedge

  So says the link below. Not much political rhetoric on this slam dunk policy. More and more Republicans are severing themselves away from the bomb and spend neoconservatives.
  
  We spend about 1.1 trillion per year encompassing all of our defence organizations. We have about 800 military bases around the globe and have over 150,000 on our payroll, funded by the printing press....ground into motion by the most powerful anti balanced budget machine out there...the Pentagon.
  
  We built about 350 F-22's at a staggering cost of 335 million per piece. Yet, we have never really used them. And most likely, WILL never use them.
  
  Ask Great Britain on the cost of running an empire...and how running an empire leads to financial insolvency. Our founding fathers laugh their asses off at our stupidy from their collective graves.
  
  http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_best_offense_is_a_cheaper_defense
• derek bomar

  

  I don't know why more people don't call for drastic military spending cuts. End the fucking wars now. Close a shit ton of unnecessary bases. Stop building things you don't need.
• Midstate01

  

  Military is the only good thing they spend money on.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I agree on cutting bases worldwide, pulling back in some areas, and reforming some procurement practices to save money.
  The DoD is already moving to consolidate large data centers from around the U.S. in order to save money.
  But, there are some big programs coming down the pipe that are going to be needed:
  The replacement for the Ohio class SSBN. Right now there are plans to have 12 of them deployed, the first coming out in 2029. Cost estimates are 9 billion per boat. That is going to cause the Navy to face some tough decisions in the shipbuilding budget because we need the subs as they are the backbone of our nuclear deterrent.
  Ballistic missile defense, right now get around 10 billion a year. As we move closer to fielding the Aegis system, costs will go up in the coming years.
  Information: The DoD has a large program to reform all means of communication and get all the branches talking to each a lot faster and with more efficiency. It is a multi billion dollar effort.
  In addition, all the branches are really fielding more and more unmanned systems, which will cost millions/ billions in the next decade.
  There is also the plan to replace the B-52 bomber, cause you know, it's older than dirt.
  The DoD is also going to have to tackle healthcare costs as those skyrocket, especially given the two wars. Those costs will consume more and more of the budget.
  You will also probably have to sell the military to take a paycut, or a decrease in benefits, or a freeze in upward movements.
  
  Finally, we have to balance everything. As if we cut too much,we can really damage our place in the world, alienate our allies, provide ammo for potential enemies and even letting ourselves fall into a crisis situation where we cannot respond quick enough.
  The article mentions we cut the budget before, yes in the 90s and that screwed us over for many reasons up to 9/11 and beyond.
• gut

  All fair points, Ptwon, but from my perspective we should be able to about halve the military budget (and would still be outspending like 4X the next closest country, but maybe my data is a bit dated).
  
  There's also a very cynical reality of how many lives - wars and terrorism included - we're saving. That obviously nearly impossible to estimate, but if you put pencil to paper, is it $100k per or is it $1M per (or more)? There certainly comes a tipping point where the benefits aren't worth the costs. And in that regard it's not much different from other entitlements in that you have to decide what level of security/safety you can afford. Just for some perspective, in 2009 some 23,000 people died in non-alcohol related car accidents. If we could reduce that number to 0, would we really be willing to spend $230B to do so?
  
  We have a massive spending problem, and there are large chunks that can go to significantly closing that gap, mainly reducing military spending, cutting SS/Medicare, and raising taxes.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Halving the military budget is simply not feasible.
  You would have to drastically cut back on pay, health benefits and programs.
  It would also I'm sure cost us our national security and our ability to respond in a crisis.
  The better option is a casual drawdown that won't shock the system.
• gut

  ptown_trojans_1;847695 wrote: The better option is a casual drawdown that won't shock the system.

  
  Obviously you have to reduce responsibly, but I question the justification for having to spend more money than the next 15 countries combined. Where are we, 6X what China spends and nearly 3X all of Europe? Is their national security threatened? A 30-50% reduction does not seem all that impossible, and we'd still be spending a ton more than everyone else.
• Glory Days

  

  gut;847706 wrote: but I question the justification for having to spend more money than the next 15 countries combined. Where are we, 6X what China spends and nearly 3X all of Europe? Is their national security threatened? A 30-50% reduction does not seem all that impossible, and we'd still be spending a ton more than everyone else.

  
  world domination, duh.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  You'll find no more stronger proponent of a strong national defense than me -- but it's time to start seriously paring our worldwide forces.
  
  It's also long past time for European countries to be more responsible for their own defense. We can no longer afford to shoulder that burden financially. This is something that should have started to take place a long time ago.
  
  Yes, do it gradually and responsibly -- but cut our world presence dramatically.
  
  And spend the money more wisely on creating a more mobile, efficient fighting force that can be deployed strategically.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I am all for cutting our defense budget, but if we completely disbanded the military tomorrow, guess what, we still have a half trillion dollar deficit. And that is one of the few things in the budget that the federal government is obligated to do. Cut the defense budget significantly, and slash everything else severely.
• majorspark

  

  For too long now our military equipment, manpower, and dollars have been going to subsidize our allies social spending. Especially the Europeans. Its been 70 yrs since WWII and 20 yrs past the Cold War. Its time our allies foot the bill for their defense needs.
  
  Then we have Korea. Nearly 60yrs later the North and South are technically still in a state of war. And the United States is still right in the middle of it. For nearly 60yrs nothing has changed. Other than the North now has nukes. Time to get off the fence and get a peace treaty. If the North gives up their nukes (under US supervision), establishes the 38th parallel as the border, and concedes on some of the Yellow Sea issues. The US will pull its troops from South Korea. Makes sense to me. We still maintain more than enough military power to strike the North if the treaty is violated.
• coyotes22

  

  Cut defense budget by 50%?!?!? But not touch Medcare/Medicaid?
  
  The Governments job is to protect the Country from foreign and domestic dangers, NOT provide healthcare to people!!
• gut

  coyotes22;849180 wrote:Cut defense budget by 50%?!?!? But not touch Medcare/Medicaid?
  
  The Governments job is to protect the Country from foreign and domestic dangers, NOT provide healthcare to people!!

  
  I didn't pull that number out of thin air - we'd still be spending 1.5-2X all of Europe and 3X China. That SHOULD be more than sufficient, I think. And we're only talking $350B or so, or about 1/4th of the solution. You are still going to need take a pretty significant hack out of SS/Medicare.
  
  I'd ask for 50, and hope/xpect 30% on military spending. But really anything much beyond 15-20% is almost a crippling cut (can't imagine cutting military 50%, and it's not like you can cut half an aircraft carrier) in many instances for actual functional segments (as opposed to SS/Medicare where the function is essentially licking address labels and stamps). Although 15-20% would be a crippling cut for a fairly well-run business (and it is still done all the time), but there's so much fat in govt programs I think we would be shocked at how little impact a 15% cut would truly have (would probably feel more like 5%).
• BGFalcons82

  

  coyotes22;849180 wrote:Cut defense budget by 50%?!?!? But not touch Medcare/Medicaid?
  
  The Governments job is to protect the Country from foreign and domestic dangers, NOT provide healthcare to people!!

  
  No no no..where have you been? Since Barry has been running around the planet apologizing for all things American, the world now loves the USA. Kumbaya is the new world theme song.
  
  The government's new priorities:
  1. Buying old cars, destroying their engines, and giving Americans $3,000 for their efforts.
  2. Becoming stockholders in private corporations like GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc.
  3. Selling guns to drug cartel representatives in Mexico so they can shoot Republicans in Texas and Arizona.
  4. Disbanding NASA and giving Muslims a hug and a check.
  5. Giving out as many food stamps as the printing presses can muster.
  6. Attempting to bankrupt oil drilling companies so they'll move offshore and then sell us oil at inflated prices.
  7. Chasing what's left of a manufacturing base to foreign countries in the guise of tax fairness.
  8. Social engineer the military.
  9. Save Acorn.
  10. Unionize as many as possible.
  
  Defense of America? That's about 40th on the list according to the new living Constitution. Get in the game.
• cruiser_96

  

  coyotes22;849180 wrote:Cut defense budget by 50%?!?!? But not touch Medcare/Medicaid?
  
  The Governments job is to protect the Country from foreign and domestic dangers, NOT provide healthcare to people!!

  
  +1!
  
  All this time and effort figuring out the misspending, overspending and lack of efficiency in the military (WHICH MOST OF US AGREE ON!!!) but not one... NOT ONE SHRED of effort to do the same with the welfare system, Congression payroll, etc. BS at it's finest!
  
  Almost makes it sound like an anti-military/defense agenda!? Why would someone want that/!?!?!?!?!?! Hmmmmmmm.....
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Here is a great report by CSBA concerning the DoD budget.
  http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2011/07/analysis-of-the-fy2012-defense-budget/
  
  It provides some detail to overall areas for FY12 and a starting point to discuss cuts.
• coyotes22

  

  BGFalcons82;849422 wrote:No no no..where have you been? Since Barry has been running around the planet apologizing for all things American, the world now loves the USA. Kumbaya is the new world theme song.
  
  The government's new priorities:
  1. Buying old cars, destroying their engines, and giving Americans $3,000 for their efforts.
  2. Becoming stockholders in private corporations like GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc.
  3. Selling guns to drug cartel representatives in Mexico so they can shoot Republicans in Texas and Arizona.
  4. Disbanding NASA and giving Muslims a hug and a check.
  5. Giving out as many food stamps as the printing presses can muster.
  6. Attempting to bankrupt oil drilling companies so they'll move offshore and then sell us oil at inflated prices.
  7. Chasing what's left of a manufacturing base to foreign countries in the guise of tax fairness.
  8. Social engineer the military.
  9. Save Acorn.
  10. Unionize as many as possible.
  
  Defense of America? That's about 40th on the list according to the new living Constitution. Get in the game.

  
  You could have saved time and just typed:
  
  He wants to Socialize the US.
  
  
• coyotes22

  

  cruiser_96;849548 wrote:+1!
  
  All this time and effort figuring out the misspending, overspending and lack of efficiency in the military (WHICH MOST OF US AGREE ON!!!) but not one... NOT ONE SHRED of effort to do the same with the welfare system, Congression payroll, etc. BS at it's finest!
  
  Almost makes it sound like an anti-military/defense agenda!? Why would someone want that/!?!?!?!?!?! Hmmmmmmm.....

  We cant cut entitlements, because that means losing votes. We all know the military is just filled with high school drop outs, who prolly dont even know how to vote.
• coyotes22

  

  A good,,,,,, No great read:
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/for-god-and-country-new-reported-details-of-seal-team-6s-osama-raid/
• coyotes22

  

  Yes, lets cut Defense spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-china-building-aircraft-carriers-for-regional-power-projection/
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  coyotes22;850491 wrote:Yes, lets cut Defense spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-china-building-aircraft-carriers-for-regional-power-projection/

  Here is what is funny about the China carrier:
  1. It is still years away and it is unknown if China has the planes to launch from it.
  2. The Chinese do not have an established doctrine or strategy for their carriers, no idea for what will be a carrier group for them
  3. The Japanese are countering with more destroyers and subs to counter, as the Chinese do not really have active subs to lead a carrier group.
  4. The carrier isn't even theirs, its Eastern European and hasn't even been put at sea trials.
  
  It's news, but not earth shattering. Isn't it going to change the balance of power in the region, probably not.
  All that said, it does show at the very least we need to maintain a sizable presence in Pacific Command.
• queencitybuckeye

  Cutting weapons systems that the military doesn't want but certain members of Congress do because of where they'll be built would be a very good start.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;851028 wrote:It's news, but not earth shattering. Isn't it going to change the balance of power in the region, probably not.
  All that said, it does show at the very least we need to maintain a sizable presence in Pacific Command.

  It's ironic that we need to spend money we're borrowing from the Chi-Coms to maintain a sizable presence in the Pacific Command to balance regional power against the Chi-Coms.
  
  Someone want to 'splain that one to us?
• queencitybuckeye

  believer;851807 wrote:It's ironic that we need to spend money we're borrowing from the Chi-Coms to maintain a sizable presence in the Pacific Command to balance regional power against the Chi-Coms.
  
  Someone want to 'splain that one to us?

  
  We've been on the opposite side of that equation any number of times, making the same amount of sense.
• believer

  

  queencitybuckeye;851815 wrote:We've been on the opposite side of that equation any number of times, making the same amount of sense.

  True, but the fact that the tables have turned should be even more evidence that someone's flushed the toilet and that's us swirling down the crapper.