4 ms·

That is an excellent question. I'm too lazy to search for the answer, but, with our luck, I'd say that the Defense budget is about evenly split betwixt personn

That is an excellent question. I'm too lazy to search for the answer, but, with our luck, I'd say that the Defense budget is about evenly split betwixt personnel and hardware. Therefore, cuts to defense spending will cause unemployment for both defense contractor engineers as well as veteran grunts.

jlmendezbonini 15y ago
Taking over your laziness I found the 2010 budget. It doesn't really provide an accurate personnel versus hardware comparison but it looks like this: Maintenance and operations 41.35% Military personnel 22.5% Procurement 20.45% Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation 11.54% Military Construction 3.49% Family Housing 0.145% Total 99.45% (I'm lazy too and rounded too much. Hey it's just 359.6775 millions that are missing...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#By_title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...
- winestock 15y ago
  Upvoted for doing my homework for me. So keeping the lights on and the water running is 42% (there was a link that the Pentagon spends more on air-conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan per year than NASA's entire annual budget). Much of that cost must be due to maintaining offshore bases. 22.5% pays for the salaries of everyone from grunts to Joint Chiefs. I'll say that getting snazzy new hardware comes under Procurement, R&D, and Test & Eval. So, let's say 32%. That makes 22.5% versus 32% for personnel versus hardware. It's not parity, but it's in the same ballpark. The biggest bite comes from maintenance & ops, of course. That figure has to include the cost keeping Navy boats afloat. No way to chop that down without also cutting down personnel. After all, if you cut the number of facilities by half, there will a lot less space for the personnel to stay in and fight from. Doing that has to have non-trivial effects on military readiness and the perception of potential enemies. None of this is easy.

jlmendezbonini 15y ago

Taking over your laziness I found the 2010 budget. It doesn't really provide an accurate personnel versus hardware comparison but it looks like this: Maintenance and operations 41.35% Military personnel 22.5% Procurement 20.45% Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation 11.54% Military Construction 3.49% Family Housing 0.145% Total 99.45% (I'm lazy too and rounded too much. Hey it's just 359.6775 millions that are missing...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#By_title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...

winestock 15y ago
Upvoted for doing my homework for me. So keeping the lights on and the water running is 42% (there was a link that the Pentagon spends more on air-conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan per year than NASA's entire annual budget). Much of that cost must be due to maintaining offshore bases. 22.5% pays for the salaries of everyone from grunts to Joint Chiefs. I'll say that getting snazzy new hardware comes under Procurement, R&D, and Test & Eval. So, let's say 32%. That makes 22.5% versus 32% for personnel versus hardware. It's not parity, but it's in the same ballpark. The biggest bite comes from maintenance & ops, of course. That figure has to include the cost keeping Navy boats afloat. No way to chop that down without also cutting down personnel. After all, if you cut the number of facilities by half, there will a lot less space for the personnel to stay in and fight from. Doing that has to have non-trivial effects on military readiness and the perception of potential enemies. None of this is easy.