Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

Not cutting our military to the point that we can't stand up to them anymore? Our involvement in the middle east is not ending anytime in the foreseeable future, and our military right now is incapable of fighting a full scale war on another front, and there are just more shrinkages on the way. While China has done nothing but make their military grow, we've been making ours smaller and smaller.

Do you honestly believe that the US is on the cusp of "full-scale war" with China?

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Not cutting our military to the point that we can't stand up to them anymore? Our involvement in the middle east is not ending anytime in the foreseeable future, and our military right now is incapable of fighting a full scale war on another front, and there are just more shrinkages on the way. While China has done nothing but make their military grow, we've been making ours smaller and smaller.

Do you honestly believe that the US is on the cusp of "full-scale war" with China?

Only a fool would think we are. Do you think it's a wise idea to continually make yourself weaker when potentially belligerent states also make themselves stronger? To tap into the geek culture here, China is playing the Game of Thrones, and they are playing it to win. We aren't. So to speak.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While it is hyperbole, there is truth to it. Defunding a large military will shift us into a stage where we can only maintain current weaponry and not also develop more advanced weapons.

It is vitally important to keep advancing your military to keep pace with the rest of the world, and that requires spending. Plus we also have to maintain existing weaponry.

So yes, defunding the military will indeed cause it to "rot" so to speak. Look at what happened to the Russians after the Cold War to see what happens to an army that loses its funding.

That's a false dilemma. You can lower the amount of spending on defense while still maintaining a level that will keep your military healthy. Your assessment hinges on the implication that we haven't been mismanaging a huge sum of our defense budget on crap like the F-35.

It's a true statement that if you lose too much weight you'll die, but if you're 100 pounds past the obesity line then that's not a real concern.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While it is hyperbole, there is truth to it. Defunding a large military will shift us into a stage where we can only maintain current weaponry and not also develop more advanced weapons.

It is vitally important to keep advancing your military to keep pace with the rest of the world, and that requires spending. Plus we also have to maintain existing weaponry.

So yes, defunding the military will indeed cause it to "rot" so to speak. Look at what happened to the Russians after the Cold War to see what happens to an army that loses its funding.

That's a false dilemma. You can lower the amount of spending on defense while still maintaining a level that will keep your military healthy. Your assessment hinges on the implication that we haven't been mismanaging a huge sum of our defense budget on crap.

It's a true statement that if you lose too much weight you'll die, but if you're 100 pounds past the obesity line then that's not a real concern.

We haven't. Our conflicts in SW Asia have been coming from funds from other appropriations. DoD funds though, have seen massive declines over the last 5 years. 2010 - $721 billion. 2015 - $637 billion.

 djones520 wrote:

Only a fool would think we are. Do you think it's a wise idea to continually make yourself weaker when potentially belligerent states also make themselves stronger?

It depends on the balance of power.

 djones520 wrote:
And it is not like "spending" the money is bad. Sure, the DoD is the largest single agency in the government in terms of budget. But it also ensures millions of American's receive steady pay checks. Through it's military employees, civilian employees, and then all the companies that it contracts to build bullets, ships, aircraft, trucks, and even things like buying Dell computers and the like. Lets also not forget all of the millions of Americans who have jobs because of the money that military personnel spend. How many towns in America would collapse on themselves without the income we provide to them?

The DoD is not a money vacuum. Hundreds of billions of the money given to it, goes directly back into the American economy.

You just made a compelling argument for, essentially, welfare.

Conservatives believe we need less government, unless it's military spending, because then we can use tax dollars to inflate our military not because of strategic need but because lots of Americans need paychecks.

I mean, there is sort of a disconnect there.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Oh-no, better increase funding to the US armed forces! It's only 55% of our tax revenue!


*sigh*


The idea that china would ever attack Korea or japan is rediulous. Japan in the 3rd largest economy in the world, and is going to almost definitely have America behind it (unless there is some severe fallout between the governments). It would be stupid for China to delare war on anyone that would stop trade to and from china).

So explain how a budget of approximately $500B is 55% of our $3B Federal tax revenue ?

The thought that trade and economic links would stop a country from declaring war has never been true in the past so why would it be true in the future ?

Jerram wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Oh-no, better increase funding to the US armed forces! It's only 55% of our tax revenue!


*sigh*


The idea that china would ever attack Korea or japan is rediulous. Japan in the 3rd largest economy in the world, and is going to almost definitely have America behind it (unless there is some severe fallout between the governments). It would be stupid for China to delare war on anyone that would stop trade to and from china).

So explain how a budget of approximately $500B is 55% of our $3B Federal tax revenue ?

The thought that trade and economic links would stop a country from declaring war has never been true in the past so why would it be true in the future ?

Bleh, it appears I mixed up discretionary spending. I just saw a graph that said 55% and thought that is what it meant.
Still, huge budget.

And because China's economy is based on trade.




Edit:

I looked at this graph:


and thought it was this graph:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
And it is not like "spending" the money is bad. Sure, the DoD is the largest single agency in the government in terms of budget. But it also ensures millions of American's receive steady pay checks. Through it's military employees, civilian employees, and then all the companies that it contracts to build bullets, ships, aircraft, trucks, and even things like buying Dell computers and the like. Lets also not forget all of the millions of Americans who have jobs because of the money that military personnel spend. How many towns in America would collapse on themselves without the income we provide to them?

The DoD is not a money vacuum. Hundreds of billions of the money given to it, goes directly back into the American economy.

You just made a compelling argument for, essentially, welfare.

Conservatives believe we need less government, unless it's military spending, because then we can use tax dollars to inflate our military not because of strategic need but because lots of Americans need paychecks.

I mean, there is sort of a disconnect there.

As a South Park Conservative™ I don't think there's a disconnect.

We need "less government" isn't simply that... it's really that in many things, Government is not always the solution. So, by extention government would *be* smaller if our society isn't so dependent on Government.

Granted, there are certain things only the Government should do... such as the Military to defend our nation and our interests. As such, I'd want the biggest, badassed military on the planet. And if the local economies benefit from this... that's just gravy man.

As a corollary, I want our Governments to get fething serious on our borders... fences, man-power, high tech surveillance, increases in Coast Guards. That's a biggie too that'll make that piece of the Government "large"... again, if the local border economies benefits from this? Cool Beans!

 Jihadin wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
NEVER FORGET!

Not enough coffee in my blood yet. Not getting it unless referencing Pearl Harbor?

Ha ha - no!

I was making a joke based on what Kilkrazy wrote just above me!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those sound like Japanese and Korean concerns.

The tens of thousands of US service members and families co-located on their bases are concerned a bit as well.

At what point do we stop being the world police?

When you forget that existential defensive wars are much better fought overseas than on US territory.

 Alpharius wrote:
NEVER FORGET!

what's the breakdown of that 55% of military spending

 Jihadin wrote:
what's the breakdown of that 55% of military spending

Probably the best breakdown I have found:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

But when people talk about 55% of our spending is on the military they need to realize that there are differences between mandatory spending and discretionary spending:







I agree that our military spending is pretty out of whack, but there is no real benefit of making it sound worse than it is.

Forget anything to do with whose got more guns, what's really sad is that 2% next to education. Our guns are bigger than our brains-that's where the danger resides.

US generals run this con job all the time, a worried announcement that some country somewhere has more of a certain weapon platform than the US, at the same time underplaying the massive difference in quality. The only solution is more of your higher end platforms, and military budgets forever climbing bigger and bigger. At some point people need to call bs on it, and start a conversation about how the US should balance it's national defence needs against a long term sustainable military budget.

One of the reasons that conversation never happens, strangely enough, is because these kind of conversations are typically flooded by people who question any kind of military spending. So the debate becomes one of whether the US should offer any kind of check on China at all.

Instead of all the nonsense, we should just agree that yes, of course the US needs to have capability to check China, and get on with discussing exactly what capability is really needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
As a South Park Conservative™ I don't think there's a disconnect.

We need "less government" isn't simply that... it's really that in many things, Government is not always the solution. So, by extention government would *be* smaller if our society isn't so dependent on Government.

Granted, there are certain things only the Government should do... such as the Military to defend our nation and our interests. As such, I'd want the biggest, badassed military on the planet. And if the local economies benefit from this... that's just gravy man.

No, the disconnect isn't between wanting smaller government overall but a bigger military. That's logically consistent. Not necessarily something everyone agrees with, but a viable political position.

The disconnect comes when you oppose government spending in general, but then one of your arguments for a bigger military is that it's a steady paycheck for millions of people, and the lifeblood of many towns. That piece of logic applies to any piece of government spending.

It's also a terrible, terrible argument. Money spent on any stupid nonsense will be a steady paycheck. Pay people to dig holes, and pay other people to fill them in, and you've created jobs just as much as if you've paid them to be in the army. The point being, of course, that if you'd given the money to a poor person they would have spent it, creating just as much economic activity as the army pay cheque. Or if you hadn't taken that money from the taxpayer they would have spent it on something for themselves, the effect again would be as much economic activity*.

So it becomes necessary to justify any government spending only the grounds that it is a better use of money than alternatives, and a better use of money than leaving it in the hands of the taxpayer. Obviously, there is a level of military spending where it is the best use of the funds - no point everyone having extra money for more netflix when the Canadians can pour over the border with no military to stop them... but the point is always what that level of spending needs to be overall.




*Note this argument changes when you hit a very deep recession. In this case people aren't spending their own money, and so government needs to spend money on anything just to maintain economic activity. In this case paying people to dig ditches and other people to fill them in actually becomes a reasonable thing. But that circumstance has happened twice in the last 100 years, and so shouldn't be made in ordinary circumstances. It's just that for strange reasons that argument has escaped its proper context and gets brought up to justify government spending whenever it's a program people like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Forget anything to do with whose got more guns, what's really sad is that 2% next to education. Our guns are bigger than our brains-that's where the danger resides.

The trick there is that it's only showing Federal spending. Most education spending in the US is done at State and Local level. The US spends about 800 billion on education in total, compared to about 600 billion on its military.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
And it is not like "spending" the money is bad. Sure, the DoD is the largest single agency in the government in terms of budget. But it also ensures millions of American's receive steady pay checks. Through it's military employees, civilian employees, and then all the companies that it contracts to build bullets, ships, aircraft, trucks, and even things like buying Dell computers and the like. Lets also not forget all of the millions of Americans who have jobs because of the money that military personnel spend. How many towns in America would collapse on themselves without the income we provide to them?

The DoD is not a money vacuum. Hundreds of billions of the money given to it, goes directly back into the American economy.

You just made a compelling argument for, essentially, welfare.

Conservatives believe we need less government, unless it's military spending, because then we can use tax dollars to inflate our military not because of strategic need but because lots of Americans need paychecks.

I mean, there is sort of a disconnect there.

I did nothing of the sort. I was just pointing out that defense spending is not some black hole that we never see the money come back from. I am not at all saying that the money is being given away for nothing. It's not like we service members are sitting on our asses as collecting a paycheck for mearly being alive or anything.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Forget anything to do with whose got more guns, what's really sad is that 2% next to education. Our guns are bigger than our brains-that's where the danger resides.

You do realize that's a federal budget chart right ? And that the overall government spending on Education in the US is a little over $900B i.e more than we spend on defense. And since I'm in a hurry I'll have to rely on a 2013 article "http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/" Sorry but the problem with our education system is not about the amount of money going into it despite what some people think.

 djones520 wrote:

I did nothing of the sort. I was just pointing out that defense spending is not some black hole that we never see the money come back from.

Yes, you did. You did it the moment you referenced indirect employment, and consumer spending.

 sebster wrote:
when the Canadians can pour over the border with no military to stop them...

I'd like to think there is a binder, deep in the recesses of the pentagon, that explicitly deals with just this eventuality. Maybe it's called "Operation: Black Maple Leaf".

 sebster wrote:
US generals run this con job all the time, a worried announcement that some country somewhere has more of a certain weapon platform than the US, at the same time underplaying the massive difference in quality.

Well, I could tell that you don't love America even before I saw your country flag.

And quantity has a quality all its own. Imagine these efficient, small sonar signature submersibles deployed in the MILLIONS by the Chinese. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Forget anything to do with whose got more guns, what's really sad is that 2% next to education. Our guns are bigger than our brains-that's where the danger resides.

Personally, I think the citizenry is more than capable of homeschooling their children about "intelligent design" without the government getting involved.

Just imagine the entire Chinese army in those, invading California.

The problem is. While china is investing sea warfare, the rest of the world is moving towards aircraft carriers with only drones.

China just shot itself in the foot as submarines have been outdated since with the advent of aircraft and hypersonic missiles and certain technologies called radar. Also there is currently testing of a certain weapon that could technically change warfare for good. (aka Railguns)

China's way of war is to throw as many troops at a problem as possible until the problem is solved.


Though on terms of the struggle between the US and China, there will never be an outward war between the two countries. China is smart enough to know, if they attack the united states, they would essentially be attacking NATO and the European Union. China would not want to deal with the economic power of the EU or its combined military strength.

Think of hegemonic power like a pendulum it swings back and forth but instead of just swinging back and forth, it swivel to it, allowing it to move in circles. Currently the hegemonic power is the United States. And every country wants that pendulum to swing their way.

China wants economic dominion, The EU wants to grow to become bigger and to rival quite a few countries.

Though I do possibly see that the US and China will one day go into an armed conflict over something equally stupid. Until that day though both sides would likely not want to encounter each other.


On Military spending, yes our military gets a lot of spending, but there is no race currently for us to do that. We need our military to still have force projection across the world. Once we lose that we are basically screwed on the world stage and china takes over as hegemonic power.

 gorgon wrote:

And quantity has a quality all its own. Imagine these efficient, small sonar signature submersibles deployed in the MILLIONS by the Chinese. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.

A nation capable of fielding millions of submarines would indeed be scary, thankfully no such nation exists.

 dogma wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

And quantity has a quality all its own. Imagine these efficient, small sonar signature submersibles deployed in the MILLIONS by the Chinese. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.

A nation capable of fielding millions of submarines would indeed be scary, thankfully no such nation exists.

You don't say.

Knowing that a war is illogical doesn't really allow that it is not going to happen.


The US defense budget could be much, much more efficient. If only there were people in power who not afraid of their military (whether fear of loss of votes for any sort of criticism or fear of loss of votes for lack of hostility to military.)

 Scrabb wrote:
Knowing that a war is illogical doesn't really allow that it is not going to happen.


The US defense budget could be much, much more efficient. If only there were people in power who not afraid of their military (whether fear of loss of votes for any sort of criticism or fear of loss of votes for lack of hostility to military.)

While I don't disagree that there are inefficiencies, could you please expound on what you think they are?

Congress appropriating funds for equipment the military doesn't want.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html

Then there's the fact all the branches of the military want all their own stuff. I don't think the marine corpse should have it's own aircraft.



I am actually more forgiving of R&D money mistakes than other inefficiencies.

That's not really a problem with the military, that's a problem with Congress.

Sure, congress is the one responsible for the military budget, by and large.

In discussing problems with said budget plenty of the blame will go to the lawmakers.

It's still a problem with the military budget.


Also, another inefficiency is the increasing number of officers.

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/90s/ns-wds-19980301.html


"This report shows that our military has almost twice as many officers per enlisted personnel than at the end of World War II. In short, officer inflation in the U.S. military has reached an all-time high. At a time when pay for enlisted personnel is so low that some are on food stamps, money is being squandered on an excessively large officer corps."

(said article is not far from 20 years old. I'm willing to bet the problem hasn't gone away yet)

Officers and NCO's are being "Pink Slipped" while in Afghanistan due to draw down. Anyone catch that past year?

 dogma wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

And quantity has a quality all its own. Imagine these efficient, small sonar signature submersibles deployed in the MILLIONS by the Chinese. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.

A nation capable of fielding millions of submarines would indeed be scary, thankfully no such nation exists.

When they surface the fiendish pontoon bridge they carry will span across the Pacific and deliver the Chinese hordes into California.
Only by increased funding of the Pentagon can this nightmare be stopped.