4 ms·

'Lack of political will to shovel money through the DoD' doesn't seem to be an issue in the US.

torstenvl 6y ago
That is objectively and obviously false. Why would you say something you know (assuming you read the OP) to be untrue? Military spending has gone from 4.89% of GDP in the first year of the Obama Administration to ~3.3-3.4% of GDP in recent years. That's a huge decrease. There's also alllll the times that military appropriations have been a political football. A lot of DoD folks have had to report to work unpaid multiple times over the past couple years. Many of them later got backpay when a budget was passed, but not all. You may not care about the morale and dedication of those people, but this isn't a values-based or tribal-loyalties based discussion. It is an objective fact that China doesn't have to deal with this process and the resulting inefficiencies.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Your point would stand on its own just fine without the accusation. Even if your data is correct, refenestrator may not know that data. Don't make accusations like that unless you know (like, provably) that he knows it.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'. I'm not questioning anyone's morale or dedication, but I AM questioning competence at the top levels when it comes to spending all that money wisely. You can blame 'political footballs' for some of that but there are plenty of failures where the military and their contractors have straight squandered fortunes. And it's not because of "too much democracy", it was after the money was allocated to a purely military-contractor relationship where nobody's voting on anything.
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    > It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'. Something costing a constant or decreasing percentage of GDP, but going up in dollar terms, is indicative of inflation. Year Budg $bn Budg/GDP YOY Infl Budg $bn ('21) ---- -------- -------- -------- -------------- 2009 705.9 4.89% -- 865.4 2010 738.0 4.92% 1.6% 890.2 2011 752.3 4.84% 3.2% 879.6 2012 725.2 4.48% 2.1% 830.8 2013 679.2 4.05% 1.5% 766.8 2014 647.8 3.70% 1.6% 719.7 2015 633.8 3.48% 0.1% 703.3 2016 639.9 3.42% 1.3% 701.2 2017 646.8 3.31% 2.1% 694.0 2018 682.5 3.32% 2.4% 714.9 2019 731.8 3.41% 1.8% 752.9 Within a decade, the budget varied so greatly that there was a 22% difference between the high and the low in real terms. When you have drastic budget cuts, you have to cut projects. Those projects can't just be picked up again where you left off when you get more money - contractors will have moved on, and in most cases the new contracts need to be re-competed. These are structural disadvantages we as Americans place on our own military, and from which the PLA does not suffer. Data from: - https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/mili... - https://www.statista.com/statistics/191077/inflation-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/191077/inflation-rate-in... - https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
    - refenestrator 6y ago
      I appreciate the data, especially the real $ pulled forward from 2009. My impression was the drop-off from 2009-2013 was all about reducing investment in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than cancelling super promising projects. Do you have an example of a great project that was cancelled? I know we reduced our order of F-22s but that was concurrent with a way bigger, splashier investment in F-35s so I'd call that 'bad priorities' rather than 'lack of resources'. I'd say that the PLA's big advantage was not invading Iraq. I almost added something about a lot of our defense spending being glorified jobs programs but I'm pretty sure that's also true over there too, just with a differently-shaped politics driving it.
- pseudo0 6y ago
  > There's also alllll the times that military appropriations have been a political football. A lot of DoD folks have had to report to work unpaid multiple times over the past couple years. Many of them later got backpay when a budget was passed, but not all. GEFTA (signed into law in 2019) guarantees retroactive pay for furloughs due to lapses in appropriations. Before that, anyone exempted who still had to show up was guaranteed pay, and Congress would virtually always still backpay the people who were furloughed. It wasn't legally guaranteed, but I can't think of any cases in the last 10-20 years where retroactive pay didn't happen. It's still pretty disruptive though, and it definitely sucks for contractors if they get sent home, as they don't get retroactive pay.
- zambon12 6y ago
  While opionated Christian Brose's 'The Kill Chain' was an enlightening read for me. Interested if you have read it?

That is objectively and obviously false. Why would you say something you know (assuming you read the OP) to be untrue? Military spending has gone from 4.89% of GDP in the first year of the Obama Administration to ~3.3-3.4% of GDP in recent years. That's a huge decrease. There's also alllll the times that military appropriations have been a political football. A lot of DoD folks have had to report to work unpaid multiple times over the past couple years. Many of them later got backpay when a budget was passed, but not all. You may not care about the morale and dedication of those people, but this isn't a values-based or tribal-loyalties based discussion. It is an objective fact that China doesn't have to deal with this process and the resulting inefficiencies.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Your point would stand on its own just fine without the accusation. Even if your data is correct, refenestrator may not know that data. Don't make accusations like that unless you know (like, provably) that he knows it.
refenestrator 6y ago
It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'. I'm not questioning anyone's morale or dedication, but I AM questioning competence at the top levels when it comes to spending all that money wisely. You can blame 'political footballs' for some of that but there are plenty of failures where the military and their contractors have straight squandered fortunes. And it's not because of "too much democracy", it was after the money was allocated to a purely military-contractor relationship where nobody's voting on anything.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  > It's gone way, way up in dollar terms over that time frame, in a low-inflation economy. Abrams tanks aren't billed by '% of GDP'. Something costing a constant or decreasing percentage of GDP, but going up in dollar terms, is indicative of inflation. Year Budg $bn Budg/GDP YOY Infl Budg $bn ('21) ---- -------- -------- -------- -------------- 2009 705.9 4.89% -- 865.4 2010 738.0 4.92% 1.6% 890.2 2011 752.3 4.84% 3.2% 879.6 2012 725.2 4.48% 2.1% 830.8 2013 679.2 4.05% 1.5% 766.8 2014 647.8 3.70% 1.6% 719.7 2015 633.8 3.48% 0.1% 703.3 2016 639.9 3.42% 1.3% 701.2 2017 646.8 3.31% 2.1% 694.0 2018 682.5 3.32% 2.4% 714.9 2019 731.8 3.41% 1.8% 752.9 Within a decade, the budget varied so greatly that there was a 22% difference between the high and the low in real terms. When you have drastic budget cuts, you have to cut projects. Those projects can't just be picked up again where you left off when you get more money - contractors will have moved on, and in most cases the new contracts need to be re-competed. These are structural disadvantages we as Americans place on our own military, and from which the PLA does not suffer. Data from: - https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/mili... - https://www.statista.com/statistics/191077/inflation-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/191077/inflation-rate-in... - https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    I appreciate the data, especially the real $ pulled forward from 2009. My impression was the drop-off from 2009-2013 was all about reducing investment in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than cancelling super promising projects. Do you have an example of a great project that was cancelled? I know we reduced our order of F-22s but that was concurrent with a way bigger, splashier investment in F-35s so I'd call that 'bad priorities' rather than 'lack of resources'. I'd say that the PLA's big advantage was not invading Iraq. I almost added something about a lot of our defense spending being glorified jobs programs but I'm pretty sure that's also true over there too, just with a differently-shaped politics driving it.
pseudo0 6y ago
> There's also alllll the times that military appropriations have been a political football. A lot of DoD folks have had to report to work unpaid multiple times over the past couple years. Many of them later got backpay when a budget was passed, but not all. GEFTA (signed into law in 2019) guarantees retroactive pay for furloughs due to lapses in appropriations. Before that, anyone exempted who still had to show up was guaranteed pay, and Congress would virtually always still backpay the people who were furloughed. It wasn't legally guaranteed, but I can't think of any cases in the last 10-20 years where retroactive pay didn't happen. It's still pretty disruptive though, and it definitely sucks for contractors if they get sent home, as they don't get retroactive pay.
zambon12 6y ago
While opionated Christian Brose's 'The Kill Chain' was an enlightening read for me. Interested if you have read it?