7 ms·

>Until we have that ever elusive world peace, we're probably going to continue to spend a fortune. We spend 10x what China does. We don't have to spend as much

>Until we have that ever elusive world peace, we're probably going to continue to spend a fortune. We spend 10x what China does. We don't have to spend as much. >people would probably just want lower taxes Heaven forbid I have more cash in my wallet. More for me to invest to help fund companies that do interesting things, perhaps even go to the moon with. I personally don't mind my tax load if it gave us things like universal healthcare and cheaper higher education and better infrastructure. I do mind it when it just powers the various killing machines at our disposal and wars based on clear lies like "yellowcake" and "WMDs." How many Mars missions did Iraq cost us? >and the research does get done. Locked away as classified or patent encumbered via Lockheed or whoever is developing $expensive_weapons_system? Yeah, we can do better. edit: The list linked on spending doesn't include all the special spending bills that paid for the Iraq and Afghani wars. Yes, we are close to spending 10x what Russia spends and probably closer to 5 or 6x what China spends. I mixed up my countries, but we are GREATLY overspending. NASA's annual budget is about a month in Afghanistan. We've spend at LEAST 2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. 4 is you count actual expenditures and future commitments like medical and disability. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/iraq-war-cost-more-than-2-trillion_n_2875493.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/iraq-war-cost-more-...

melling 13y ago
You are incorrect on what China spends. They are closing the gap, and I imagine their equipment actually costs them less per unit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...
greedo 13y ago
However, we don't have to worry just about China. We have to worry about Iran, NK, China, Russia, etc. So just looking at what China spends isn't that useful.
- mcv 13y ago
  Because Iran and North Korea are a threat to the US in what fantasy world exactly? China and Russia matter. Iran and North Korea are just diversions.
  - greedo 13y ago
    Military planning doesn't really think in terms of threats as much as capabilities. Despite the last 60 years, friends often turn into competitors/enemies when you least expect it.
    - mcv 13y ago
      I wasn't suggesting Iran and North Korea were friends. I was suggesting they lack capabilities.
      - greedo 13y ago
        If you think NK lacks the capabilities to affect the US, you're misguided. Or you don't care about US troops stationed in South Korea, Okinawa, etc. Same with Iran. It doesn't take much to cause trouble. Ask the dead Marines killed by Iranian backed terror groups in Lebanon in the 1980's.
- Someone 13y ago
  You only have to worry about everybody if you fight with everybody. By your logic, China should have to worry about the USA, Russia, etc, Russia about the USA, China, etc. Let's write that in equation form: U >= C + R C >= R + U R >= U + C I don't see a solution with either of these larger than zero :-)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
philwelch 13y ago
The US also has considerably more expensive defense requirements than any other country. We're required to defend at least half the world and with much more of a requirement to minimize friendly and civilian casualties. If anything our defense spending is inadequate to meet our obligations. So don't just say we can reduce defense spending without also outlining exactly which obligations you're willing to abandon alongside it, just as you wouldn't let a client insist on completing a software project any faster without reducing the scope.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  We certainly should not be under obligation to maintain bases in Europe. Those are relics of the Cold War and should be dropped. Then comes the precious carrier fleets. Damn big targets and essentially sitting ducks should we have an encounter with either of the supposed big baddies left, Russia or China. We have spent over three billion on just one new Destroyer class ship! I won't even touch the F35, an aircraft so compromised by committee it doesn't do what it needs to do. So suggestions, leave Europe, leave Japan, and seriously give consideration to leaving Korea. The start dropping the surface Navy to something realistic, both in size and ability to defend it. In a world of UAVs and drones Carriers are merely a romantic throw back, like the Battleships before them. As for what to do with the savings, entitlements need to be reigned in because none of the savings taken from the military are going to amount to squat until we reign in the welfare state. There too many support programs going on that fraud is rampant people are not being served. Worse many functions are also done at state levels again duplicating Federal work. The Federal government should dole out money to states, not run the programs.
- drzaiusapelord 13y ago
  >We're required to defend at least half the world No we're not. That's your opinion. Pretty sure the constitution doesnt say "Defend Europe and Korea."
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Those would be the North Atlantic Treaty and the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea, respectively. Renegotiating or reneging on these treaties would be a means of reducing American military obligations, but you could at least be honest enough to come out and say we should do that instead of pretending these treaties don't exist. My point is that just looking at the defense budget doesn't give you the whole picture. You also have to consider what benefit is provided by that budget before you decide what you're willing to give up to save money. Did you even read my comment all the way through?
melling 13y ago
The American public wasn't going to want to allocate that 2 trillion dollars for NASA, if we never had the wars. Yes, wars are very expensive, but it's naive to think we were going to Mars instead. By the way, the US consumer spends as much on pet food as we spend on NASA. http://www.petfoodinstitute.org/?page=PetfoodSales http://www.petfoodinstitute.org/?page=PetfoodSales We have a $15 trillion dollar economy. Rather than spending all day doing some wishful thinking (if there weren't any wars), dream up a way to fund more research.

melling 13y ago

You are incorrect on what China spends. They are closing the gap, and I imagine their equipment actually costs them less per unit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...

greedo 13y ago

However, we don't have to worry just about China. We have to worry about Iran, NK, China, Russia, etc. So just looking at what China spends isn't that useful.

mcv 13y ago
Because Iran and North Korea are a threat to the US in what fantasy world exactly? China and Russia matter. Iran and North Korea are just diversions.
- greedo 13y ago
  Military planning doesn't really think in terms of threats as much as capabilities. Despite the last 60 years, friends often turn into competitors/enemies when you least expect it.
  - mcv 13y ago
    I wasn't suggesting Iran and North Korea were friends. I was suggesting they lack capabilities.
    - greedo 13y ago
      If you think NK lacks the capabilities to affect the US, you're misguided. Or you don't care about US troops stationed in South Korea, Okinawa, etc. Same with Iran. It doesn't take much to cause trouble. Ask the dead Marines killed by Iranian backed terror groups in Lebanon in the 1980's.
Someone 13y ago
You only have to worry about everybody if you fight with everybody. By your logic, China should have to worry about the USA, Russia, etc, Russia about the USA, China, etc. Let's write that in equation form: U >= C + R C >= R + U R >= U + C I don't see a solution with either of these larger than zero :-)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

philwelch 13y ago

The US also has considerably more expensive defense requirements than any other country. We're required to defend at least half the world and with much more of a requirement to minimize friendly and civilian casualties. If anything our defense spending is inadequate to meet our obligations. So don't just say we can reduce defense spending without also outlining exactly which obligations you're willing to abandon alongside it, just as you wouldn't let a client insist on completing a software project any faster without reducing the scope.

Shivetya 13y ago
We certainly should not be under obligation to maintain bases in Europe. Those are relics of the Cold War and should be dropped. Then comes the precious carrier fleets. Damn big targets and essentially sitting ducks should we have an encounter with either of the supposed big baddies left, Russia or China. We have spent over three billion on just one new Destroyer class ship! I won't even touch the F35, an aircraft so compromised by committee it doesn't do what it needs to do. So suggestions, leave Europe, leave Japan, and seriously give consideration to leaving Korea. The start dropping the surface Navy to something realistic, both in size and ability to defend it. In a world of UAVs and drones Carriers are merely a romantic throw back, like the Battleships before them. As for what to do with the savings, entitlements need to be reigned in because none of the savings taken from the military are going to amount to squat until we reign in the welfare state. There too many support programs going on that fraud is rampant people are not being served. Worse many functions are also done at state levels again duplicating Federal work. The Federal government should dole out money to states, not run the programs.
drzaiusapelord 13y ago
>We're required to defend at least half the world No we're not. That's your opinion. Pretty sure the constitution doesnt say "Defend Europe and Korea."
- philwelch 13y ago
  Those would be the North Atlantic Treaty and the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea, respectively. Renegotiating or reneging on these treaties would be a means of reducing American military obligations, but you could at least be honest enough to come out and say we should do that instead of pretending these treaties don't exist. My point is that just looking at the defense budget doesn't give you the whole picture. You also have to consider what benefit is provided by that budget before you decide what you're willing to give up to save money. Did you even read my comment all the way through?

melling 13y ago

The American public wasn't going to want to allocate that 2 trillion dollars for NASA, if we never had the wars. Yes, wars are very expensive, but it's naive to think we were going to Mars instead. By the way, the US consumer spends as much on pet food as we spend on NASA. http://www.petfoodinstitute.org/?page=PetfoodSales http://www.petfoodinstitute.org/?page=PetfoodSales We have a $15 trillion dollar economy. Rather than spending all day doing some wishful thinking (if there weren't any wars), dream up a way to fund more research.