4 ms·

> Also, the military cannot afford weapons programs it needs to compete with 'near-peer' threats such as China and Russia. Defense spending by country (from Go

> Also, the military cannot afford weapons programs it needs to compete with 'near-peer' threats such as China and Russia. Defense spending by country (from Google): Russia: $84.9 billion China: $171.4 billion US: $618.7 billion If we can't compete with militaries that spend a fraction of what we spend, the problem isn't lack of funding, it's the people spending it. The military has an efficiency problem, not a funding problem.

forapurpose 9y ago
The U.S. spends far more, but the U.S. has far greater commitments. Russia and China are "regional powers"; their goal is to dominate the areas in their geographic proximity. The U.S. has to dominate China in its region, Russia in its region, as well as the Middle East, the Americas, and everywhere else. The U.S. has fought wars in Central Asia and in the Arabian Peninsula recently, as well as standing down an enemy in NE Asia (North Korea) and in Europe (Russia), facing a competitor in the western Pacific (China), and the Persian Gulf (Iran). There are deployments in over 100 nations, IIRC, and ongoing military operations all over, from the Philippines to Chad to Yemen to Somalia to many more. The U.S. Navy secures trade worldwide. And at the same time, the U.S. military must train and prepare for every contingency, from a Chinese invasion of Taiwan to revolution in Pakistan (endangering the nuclear weapons there) to a Russian invasion of the Baltics to a breakdown in order in Lebanon or Venezuala, to Iran restarting its nuclear weapons program ... China and Russia don't have those problems. Here's an off-the-cuff summary of why: Since WWII, the U.S. has been the muscle behind the rules-based international order. Even domestically, under the rule of law, government needs force occasionally (e.g,, police) to maintain order and enforce laws. Internationally, there is no government; it's fundamentally anarchy. History has shown that the anarchy is very difficult to control and easily explodes into wars that destroy humans, cities, and set back civilization, and that's especially true in the nuclear age. Nothing is worse for humanity than war; WWI and WWII were major examples of that. Post-WWII, the winning nations sought to prevent or minimize further wars by establishing a rules-based (i.e., legal) international order, centered around the United Nations and other institutions. The rules mean nothing unless someone can back it up, and post-WWII and even now, the U.S. is the only candidate with enough power to do so, military, cultural, and economic. The cost of the U.S. military is considered far less than the cost of anarchy, and in fact the U.S.'s preeminent position means that America has far greater say in international issues than any other nation. The Trump administration is retreating from that responsibility, to a degree; we'll see how far they go and what the next administration does. > The military has an efficiency problem, not a funding problem. That idea has been around forever. Either it's not true, or it's intractable to a degree. Every large institution is wasteful, from Fortune 500 companies to large universities to the U.S. military. Unless you have a viable plan for reducing that waste, and can say what the savings will be, it seems wishful to say 'we'll just cut waste'.
- curun1r 9y ago
  It's clear that you and I simply have very different world views. You use the term "has to" in talking about what I believe is a pathological need to dominate every other country everywhere. I favor a far more coalitional approach where we don't have to lead nearly as often as we do now. I'd prefer our defense department focus more on actually defending us rather than defending US corporate interests overseas. > Unless you have a viable plan for reducing that waste Yep. It's the same plan that works so well for dealing with type-II diabetes. You cut back significantly, funding rather than calories, and force the military to economize. The reason you get waste is a lack of accountability and consequences for overspending. Forcing the military to cut everything non-essential and then keep cutting the cost of the essential until they're spending no more than the next-largest military will force the tough decisions to be made. When you always say yes to military appropriations, those tough decisions are never forced. The US military is an obese, lumbering 600lb gorilla. It needs to go on a diet to become a svelte, agile and precise tool of last resort. As a bonus, that would either come with tax cuts, national debt reduction or the prolonged life of Social Security. All three of those are, in my view, far superior ways to spend money.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > It's the same plan that works so well for dealing with type-II diabetes. You cut back significantly, funding rather than calories, and force the military to economize. You haven't established that there is significant waste or where; I don't even know what problem it solves, and the above has no basis. It's not good policy, it's a talking point. I'd love to cut waste, but there needs to be a serious discussion, not wishful strategies based on wishful conceptions of the situation. I don't know about the parent, but often this argument is used by partisans who want to cut government no matter what, regardless of the consequences. > I favor a far more coalitional approach where we don't have to lead nearly as often as we do now. I'd prefer our defense department focus more on actually defending us rather than defending US corporate interests overseas. Again, this sounds like a nice theory, but do we have any reason to believe it works? AFAIK, history shows that in an anarchic situation like international relations, coalitions aren't stable; you need one actor. What I've read from international relations experts and practitioners is that coalitions don't work now: Effectively, very little happens in the international arena without the U.S. pushing it. So before we take that plunge, we need to know. Mistakes are very, very costly.

forapurpose 9y ago

The U.S. spends far more, but the U.S. has far greater commitments. Russia and China are "regional powers"; their goal is to dominate the areas in their geographic proximity. The U.S. has to dominate China in its region, Russia in its region, as well as the Middle East, the Americas, and everywhere else. The U.S. has fought wars in Central Asia and in the Arabian Peninsula recently, as well as standing down an enemy in NE Asia (North Korea) and in Europe (Russia), facing a competitor in the western Pacific (China), and the Persian Gulf (Iran). There are deployments in over 100 nations, IIRC, and ongoing military operations all over, from the Philippines to Chad to Yemen to Somalia to many more. The U.S. Navy secures trade worldwide. And at the same time, the U.S. military must train and prepare for every contingency, from a Chinese invasion of Taiwan to revolution in Pakistan (endangering the nuclear weapons there) to a Russian invasion of the Baltics to a breakdown in order in Lebanon or Venezuala, to Iran restarting its nuclear weapons program ... China and Russia don't have those problems. Here's an off-the-cuff summary of why: Since WWII, the U.S. has been the muscle behind the rules-based international order. Even domestically, under the rule of law, government needs force occasionally (e.g,, police) to maintain order and enforce laws. Internationally, there is no government; it's fundamentally anarchy. History has shown that the anarchy is very difficult to control and easily explodes into wars that destroy humans, cities, and set back civilization, and that's especially true in the nuclear age. Nothing is worse for humanity than war; WWI and WWII were major examples of that. Post-WWII, the winning nations sought to prevent or minimize further wars by establishing a rules-based (i.e., legal) international order, centered around the United Nations and other institutions. The rules mean nothing unless someone can back it up, and post-WWII and even now, the U.S. is the only candidate with enough power to do so, military, cultural, and economic. The cost of the U.S. military is considered far less than the cost of anarchy, and in fact the U.S.'s preeminent position means that America has far greater say in international issues than any other nation. The Trump administration is retreating from that responsibility, to a degree; we'll see how far they go and what the next administration does. > The military has an efficiency problem, not a funding problem. That idea has been around forever. Either it's not true, or it's intractable to a degree. Every large institution is wasteful, from Fortune 500 companies to large universities to the U.S. military. Unless you have a viable plan for reducing that waste, and can say what the savings will be, it seems wishful to say 'we'll just cut waste'.

curun1r 9y ago
It's clear that you and I simply have very different world views. You use the term "has to" in talking about what I believe is a pathological need to dominate every other country everywhere. I favor a far more coalitional approach where we don't have to lead nearly as often as we do now. I'd prefer our defense department focus more on actually defending us rather than defending US corporate interests overseas. > Unless you have a viable plan for reducing that waste Yep. It's the same plan that works so well for dealing with type-II diabetes. You cut back significantly, funding rather than calories, and force the military to economize. The reason you get waste is a lack of accountability and consequences for overspending. Forcing the military to cut everything non-essential and then keep cutting the cost of the essential until they're spending no more than the next-largest military will force the tough decisions to be made. When you always say yes to military appropriations, those tough decisions are never forced. The US military is an obese, lumbering 600lb gorilla. It needs to go on a diet to become a svelte, agile and precise tool of last resort. As a bonus, that would either come with tax cuts, national debt reduction or the prolonged life of Social Security. All three of those are, in my view, far superior ways to spend money.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > It's the same plan that works so well for dealing with type-II diabetes. You cut back significantly, funding rather than calories, and force the military to economize. You haven't established that there is significant waste or where; I don't even know what problem it solves, and the above has no basis. It's not good policy, it's a talking point. I'd love to cut waste, but there needs to be a serious discussion, not wishful strategies based on wishful conceptions of the situation. I don't know about the parent, but often this argument is used by partisans who want to cut government no matter what, regardless of the consequences. > I favor a far more coalitional approach where we don't have to lead nearly as often as we do now. I'd prefer our defense department focus more on actually defending us rather than defending US corporate interests overseas. Again, this sounds like a nice theory, but do we have any reason to believe it works? AFAIK, history shows that in an anarchic situation like international relations, coalitions aren't stable; you need one actor. What I've read from international relations experts and practitioners is that coalitions don't work now: Effectively, very little happens in the international arena without the U.S. pushing it. So before we take that plunge, we need to know. Mistakes are very, very costly.