4 ms·

You could always try the military... you've got one hell of an expensive lean, mean fighting machine there. I'm pretty sure it would still be as good for defenc

by buro9 16y ago

You could always try the military... you've got one hell of an expensive lean, mean fighting machine there. I'm pretty sure it would still be as good for defence at a fraction of the cost.

anamax 16y ago
> You could always try the military... you've got one hell of an expensive lean, mean fighting machine there. I'm pretty sure it would still be as good for defence at a fraction of the cost. The US military is about 6% of Federal spending and didn't jump significantly during Iraq. For example, Iraq cost about $1T over 8 years. At least one of the stimulus cost about that, and we've had several since 2007. The long term trend for US military spending is down. It was over 20% before Vietnam.
- Retric 16y ago
  It's closer to 1/4 of total spending. Out of $3.552 trillion in total federal spending: Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S... PS: The range of costs depends on what and when you consider something military spending. Do you count future pensions under current spending or do you count current pensions? etc.
  - anamax 16y ago
    The "outside the defense department budget" numbers are sketchy at best. Interest on debt for past wars isn't something that can be cut. "State Department financing of foreign arms sales" is diplomacy, not military spending. (It may be dumb diplomacy, but it's diplomacy.)
dctoedt 16y ago
> I'm pretty sure it would still be as good for defence at a fraction of the cost. And your military-affairs expertise is derived from ... ?
Dove 16y ago
Be careful with that. Warfighting is every bit as complex, technical and dynamic a discipline as computers. Maybe more so. Do you have a developed opinion on ballistic defense, our nuclear posture, our relative emphasis on COIN vs. conventional warfare? No? Then you are in the position of an executive eying the expensive IT department with a foggy notion that it could get the job done for half the cost, without a clear idea of what a server is or does or why the administrator is so dang expensive. I recommend poking around the Quadrennial Defense Review site to get a primer on the major issues. It's a report the DOD does every four years to evaluate its priorities and capabilities, explain its budget, etc. There are lots of executive reviews, intelligent and opinionated commentaries, that sort of thing. http://www.defense.gov/qdr/ http://www.defense.gov/qdr/
- stinkytaco 16y ago
  Indeed, the military is one of the most studied, analyzed and questioned branches of the government (speaking as a former military man). I remember the time I read the GAO report on the Patriot Missle System, it was a huge eye opener for me. The government is much more transparent than we give it credit for, we just have to be willing to put the time in.
- Retric 16y ago
  There is a huge gap between the US and the second best military in the world. After a 15% cut in DoD budget we would still maintain that #1, so the real question is how much of a lead do we need to feel safe? Must we be able to crush #2 - 5 at the same time?
  - Dove 16y ago
    Well, it's not a horse race. It's not a question of being able to beat the other guy, but of capability. It's not about who you can beat, but what you can do. (Though the amusing answer to your last question is yes -- for many recent years, the direction was that the military needed to be at a level to prosecute two overseas wars while maintaining homeland defense). One of the QDR review panels talked about current issues in defense. It's not authoritative direction, but it does give a taste of how the military is about more than just competing with the next peer. Here's what they had to say about its goals: 1. America has for most of the last century pursued four enduring security interests: a. The defense of the American homeland b. Assured access to the sea, air, space, and cyberspace c. The preservation of a favorable balance of power across Eurasia that prevents authoritarian domination of that region d. Providing for the global ―common good through such actions as humanitarian aid, development assistance, and disaster relief. 2. Five key global trends face the nation as it seeks to sustain its role as the leader of an international system that protects the interests outlined above: a. Radical Islamist extremism and the threat of terrorism b. The rise of new global great powers in Asia c. Continued struggle for power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East d. An accelerating global competition for resources e. Persistent problems from failed and failing states. 3. These five key global trends have framed a range of choices for the United States: a. These trends are likely to place an increased demand on American "hard power" to preserve regional balances; while diplomacy and development have important roles to play, the world‘s first-order concerns will continue to be security concerns. b. The various tools of "smart power" – diplomacy, engagement, trade, targeted communications about American ideals and intentions, development of grassroots political and economic institutions – will be increasingly necessary to protect America‘s national interests. c. Today‘s world offers unique opportunities for international cooperation, but the United States needs to guide continued adaptation of existing international institutions and alliances and to support development of new institutions appropriate to the demands of the 21st century. This will not happen without global confidence in American leadership, its political, economic, and military strength, and steadfast national purpose. d. Finally, America cannot abandon a leadership role in support of its national interests. To do so will simply lead to an increasingly unstable and unfriendly global climate and eventually to conflicts America cannot ignore, which we must then prosecute with limited choices under unfavorable circumstances -- and with stakes that are higher than anyone would like. It's not a question of just saying, "Do the same job with less." The military we have exists to do certain jobs and there are a lot of very smart people interested in doing those jobs very efficiently. No, if you want a cheaper military, you need to do less. You need to start picking goals to give up. If you really wanted to pare the military down to just homeland defense, you probably could do that job with a lot less, but you wouldn't be able to render humanitarian aid or make the world a safer place for everyone (us included). Here's another example of a policy goal not directly related to homeland defense or beating someone else's military (This from the Nuclear Posture report): Toward a World Free of Nuclear Weapons The long-term goal of U.S. policy is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. At this point, it is not clear when this goal can be achieved. Pursuing these NPR recommendations will strengthen the security of the United States and its allies and partners and bring us significant steps closer to the President’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The conditions that would ultimately permit the United States and others to give up their nuclear weapons without risking greater international instability and insecurity are very demanding. Among those are the resolution of regional disputes that can motivate rival states to acquire and maintain nuclear weapons, success in halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, much greater transparency into the programs and capabilities of key countries of concern, verification methods and technologies capable of detecting violations of disarmament obligations, and enforcement measures strong and credible enough to deter such violations. Clearly, such conditions do not exist today. But we can – and must – work actively to create those conditions. Applying effort toward achieving those goals may require a larger or smarter (more expensive) military. We do it, not because we want to beat China, but because it's something we want to do and think is worth the cost.

by buro9 16y ago

You could always try the military... you've got one hell of an expensive lean, mean fighting machine there. I'm pretty sure it would still be as good for defence at a fraction of the cost.

anamax 16y ago

> You could always try the military... you've got one hell of an expensive lean, mean fighting machine there. I'm pretty sure it would still be as good for defence at a fraction of the cost. The US military is about 6% of Federal spending and didn't jump significantly during Iraq. For example, Iraq cost about $1T over 8 years. At least one of the stimulus cost about that, and we've had several since 2007. The long term trend for US military spending is down. It was over 20% before Vietnam.

Retric 16y ago
It's closer to 1/4 of total spending. Out of $3.552 trillion in total federal spending: Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S... PS: The range of costs depends on what and when you consider something military spending. Do you count future pensions under current spending or do you count current pensions? etc.
- anamax 16y ago
  The "outside the defense department budget" numbers are sketchy at best. Interest on debt for past wars isn't something that can be cut. "State Department financing of foreign arms sales" is diplomacy, not military spending. (It may be dumb diplomacy, but it's diplomacy.)

dctoedt 16y ago

> I'm pretty sure it would still be as good for defence at a fraction of the cost. And your military-affairs expertise is derived from ... ?

Dove 16y ago

Be careful with that. Warfighting is every bit as complex, technical and dynamic a discipline as computers. Maybe more so. Do you have a developed opinion on ballistic defense, our nuclear posture, our relative emphasis on COIN vs. conventional warfare? No? Then you are in the position of an executive eying the expensive IT department with a foggy notion that it could get the job done for half the cost, without a clear idea of what a server is or does or why the administrator is so dang expensive. I recommend poking around the Quadrennial Defense Review site to get a primer on the major issues. It's a report the DOD does every four years to evaluate its priorities and capabilities, explain its budget, etc. There are lots of executive reviews, intelligent and opinionated commentaries, that sort of thing. http://www.defense.gov/qdr/ http://www.defense.gov/qdr/

stinkytaco 16y ago
Indeed, the military is one of the most studied, analyzed and questioned branches of the government (speaking as a former military man). I remember the time I read the GAO report on the Patriot Missle System, it was a huge eye opener for me. The government is much more transparent than we give it credit for, we just have to be willing to put the time in.
Retric 16y ago
There is a huge gap between the US and the second best military in the world. After a 15% cut in DoD budget we would still maintain that #1, so the real question is how much of a lead do we need to feel safe? Must we be able to crush #2 - 5 at the same time?
- Dove 16y ago
  Well, it's not a horse race. It's not a question of being able to beat the other guy, but of capability. It's not about who you can beat, but what you can do. (Though the amusing answer to your last question is yes -- for many recent years, the direction was that the military needed to be at a level to prosecute two overseas wars while maintaining homeland defense). One of the QDR review panels talked about current issues in defense. It's not authoritative direction, but it does give a taste of how the military is about more than just competing with the next peer. Here's what they had to say about its goals: 1. America has for most of the last century pursued four enduring security interests: a. The defense of the American homeland b. Assured access to the sea, air, space, and cyberspace c. The preservation of a favorable balance of power across Eurasia that prevents authoritarian domination of that region d. Providing for the global ―common good through such actions as humanitarian aid, development assistance, and disaster relief. 2. Five key global trends face the nation as it seeks to sustain its role as the leader of an international system that protects the interests outlined above: a. Radical Islamist extremism and the threat of terrorism b. The rise of new global great powers in Asia c. Continued struggle for power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East d. An accelerating global competition for resources e. Persistent problems from failed and failing states. 3. These five key global trends have framed a range of choices for the United States: a. These trends are likely to place an increased demand on American "hard power" to preserve regional balances; while diplomacy and development have important roles to play, the world‘s first-order concerns will continue to be security concerns. b. The various tools of "smart power" – diplomacy, engagement, trade, targeted communications about American ideals and intentions, development of grassroots political and economic institutions – will be increasingly necessary to protect America‘s national interests. c. Today‘s world offers unique opportunities for international cooperation, but the United States needs to guide continued adaptation of existing international institutions and alliances and to support development of new institutions appropriate to the demands of the 21st century. This will not happen without global confidence in American leadership, its political, economic, and military strength, and steadfast national purpose. d. Finally, America cannot abandon a leadership role in support of its national interests. To do so will simply lead to an increasingly unstable and unfriendly global climate and eventually to conflicts America cannot ignore, which we must then prosecute with limited choices under unfavorable circumstances -- and with stakes that are higher than anyone would like. It's not a question of just saying, "Do the same job with less." The military we have exists to do certain jobs and there are a lot of very smart people interested in doing those jobs very efficiently. No, if you want a cheaper military, you need to do less. You need to start picking goals to give up. If you really wanted to pare the military down to just homeland defense, you probably could do that job with a lot less, but you wouldn't be able to render humanitarian aid or make the world a safer place for everyone (us included). Here's another example of a policy goal not directly related to homeland defense or beating someone else's military (This from the Nuclear Posture report): Toward a World Free of Nuclear Weapons The long-term goal of U.S. policy is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. At this point, it is not clear when this goal can be achieved. Pursuing these NPR recommendations will strengthen the security of the United States and its allies and partners and bring us significant steps closer to the President’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The conditions that would ultimately permit the United States and others to give up their nuclear weapons without risking greater international instability and insecurity are very demanding. Among those are the resolution of regional disputes that can motivate rival states to acquire and maintain nuclear weapons, success in halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, much greater transparency into the programs and capabilities of key countries of concern, verification methods and technologies capable of detecting violations of disarmament obligations, and enforcement measures strong and credible enough to deter such violations. Clearly, such conditions do not exist today. But we can – and must – work actively to create those conditions. Applying effort toward achieving those goals may require a larger or smarter (more expensive) military. We do it, not because we want to beat China, but because it's something we want to do and think is worth the cost.