• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Too much military spending.

hakr100

Android Expert
December 25, 2010
The Big (Military) Taboo

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

NY Times

We face wrenching budget cutting in the years ahead, but there’s one huge area of government spending that Democrats and Republicans alike have so far treated as sacrosanct.
It’s the military/security world, and it’s time to bust that taboo. A few facts:
• The United States spends nearly as much on military power as every other country in the world combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It says that we spend more than six times as much as the country with the next highest budget, China.
• The United States maintains troops at more than 560 bases and other sites abroad, many of them a legacy of a world war that ended 65 years ago. Do we fear that if we pull our bases from Germany, Russia might invade?
• The intelligence community is so vast that more people have “top secret” clearance than live in Washington, D.C.
• The U.S. will spend more on the war in Afghanistan this year, adjusting for inflation, than we spent on the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War combined.
This is the one area where elections scarcely matter. President Obama, a Democrat who symbolized new directions, requested about 6 percent more for the military this year than at the peak of the Bush administration.
“Republicans think banging the war drums wins them votes, and Democrats think if they don’t chime in, they’ll lose votes,” said Andrew Bacevich, an ex-military officer who now is a historian at Boston University. He is author of a thoughtful recent book, “Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War.”
The costs of excessive reliance on military force are not just financial, of course, as Professor Bacevich knows well. His son, Andrew Jr., an Army first lieutenant, was killed in Iraq in 2007.

For more, see the NYTImes.
 
so you can build 20 schools for $1,000 each? Thats about what an E-1 in the military basically makes starting out.

Plus the military has been downsized over the years. I know when I was in we had 8 B-52 bases in the US. they closed 6 of those bases and retired the B-52G. They have closed other bases over the years too.

What would you like no military? We get rid of the service men and women? All that will do is drive up unemployment even higher.

Lots of times diplomacy fails. look at iraq we tried diplomacy with Saddam. even UN sanctions but still he didnt change his ways. Same goes for Afghanistan how do you rationalize with talks with a group of people that would rather stick a knife in your chest than to talk to you. You can give those people all the education in the world and they will be still the same way. Religion is a very powerful tool and hard to show a person that their god dont want bloodshed. Look at long time ago the pope was the most powerful person in the christian world. He was more powerful than kings and could have them removed on a word. Why? Everyone thought the pope talked directly to god. Even now many people think the pope is a direct link to god.

You know how we can save money in the military? Get rid of the contractors that supplies the military. You really think $40 for a hammer is the going rate or a bolt I could get in a hardware store for $2. where as the military pays $20 for the same one. Its the civilians thats bleeding the military dry and why their budgets are so high. Get rid of these contracts and go to the local hardware store and so on to get the supplies you need. You also help the local community the base is at instead of some guy ripping off the gov selling parts for outrageous prices. That is where you save money in the military.
 
Oh, I don't know: downsizing the US military might be a good thing.

Then Europe can defend their own damn area, instead of having US troops on hand in case something goes wrong.
 
Oh, I don't know: downsizing the US military might be a good thing.

Then Europe can defend their own damn area, instead of having US troops on hand in case something goes wrong.


After WW II, we remained in Europe as we did because of Soviet aggression, the Cold War, as it were. There are some areas of unrest in the former Soviet states in Europe, but I really don't think we have many concerns these days about the Russians or about the Germans.

There are those who think we can cut our military in half. That's something worth discussing and seriously, once the economy improves, there are jobs for mustered out military folks, and our defense contractors can expand into other lines of work.
 
After WW II, we remained in Europe as we did because of Soviet aggression, the Cold War, as it were. There are some areas of unrest in the former Soviet states in Europe, but I really don't think we have many concerns these days about the Russians or about the Germans.

There are those who think we can cut our military in half. That's something worth discussing and seriously, once the economy improves, there are jobs for mustered out military folks, and our defense contractors can expand into other lines of work.
What about china and also north korea? SUre it costs a lot for keeping bases over in europe. Bet it costs more if we had to ship everything over to europe from the states when an aggressor acts up.
 
What about china and also north korea? SUre it costs a lot for keeping bases over in europe. Bet it costs more if we had to ship everything over to europe from the states when an aggressor acts up.


You don't seriously think we're going to get into a shooting war with China, do you?

As for the North Koreans, we've already had our war with them, and it turned out to be a draw. I don't see another war with them.

We could be using half the military budget to rebuild the infrastructure in this country and put a lot of people to work.

The problem with having a big, aggressive military and officers who want promotions is that you tend to use that military in wars of choice, such as George W. Bush's war against Iraq.
 
No but you never know what can happen. Didnt we fight germany in 2 world wars? So dont say we will never fight N. Korea. after all they are testing the south very hard and if they do go to war then we will be drawn in. How can the money from the military be used for rebuilding the country? When our gov will squander the money like they always do. More and more companies will move their busness out the country. Because the American worker is greedy and always want more money., Just like Buisness owners tries to create a product as cheap as possible for the greatest profit margins.

every society has had a military. You have to protect what you create. if you dont protect it someone else will want it and take it by force.
 
Let's see... what WAS the main reason for keeping the bases we have all over the world in place again?

Oh yeah... "projection of force". It let's the world know that we're still doing the job we accepted of "world policeman".

How long after we withdraw our military presence (close the bases, stop the Naval cruises) before something would spring up that would need us to do it all over again?
 
What about china and also north korea? SUre it costs a lot for keeping bases over in europe. Bet it costs more if we had to ship everything over to europe from the states when an aggressor acts up.

Most unlikely. China is now America's best friend. isn't it? Besides where would else would America go to get things manufactured on the cheap?
 
There is no way there will be a war between China and the US
Firstly: the US wouldnt start the military action
Secondly: China wouldnt, there economy would collapse
Thirdly: China would lose
 
There is no way there will be a war between China and the US
Firstly: the US wouldnt start the military action
Secondly: China wouldnt, there economy would collapse
Thirdly: China would lose

That's what they said about vietnam. They would lose.
 
Gorrilla warfare :rolleyes:
What I mean is that if China attacked the US, they would be annihilated and also ofc unable to invade

I wouldn't be too sure about the outcome. If neither side used nukes, it would become a war of attrition. We were "attrited" out of Vietnam. Keep in mind that the US has not won a war against a significant military power since WW II.
 
So we keep spending on the military, and become so damn poor that every other country will own us. Does not seem to smart to me.

This country is in trouble folks. We need to do tough cuts. The military should be included.

Otherwise we will lose economically and spend our way into ruin.
 
I wouldn't be too sure about the outcome. If neither side used nukes, it would become a war of attrition. We were "attrited" out of Vietnam. Keep in mind that the US has not won a war against a significant military power since WW II.


Well nukes are the big "if"
China wouldnt run that risk, what 200 crappy nukes against 2000 of the finest (tho 200 would be enough)

If you look at the world powers, none of them will wage a serious war with the US or EU

The US has very little to worry about

As for Afghanistan, countries like France, Spain, Ita;y, Germany need to start genuinely contributing
 
You know how we can save money in the military? Get rid of the contractors that supplies the military. You really think $40 for a hammer is the going rate or a bolt I could get in a hardware store for $2. where as the military pays $20 for the same one. Its the civilians thats bleeding the military dry and why their budgets are so high. Get rid of these contracts and go to the local hardware store and so on to get the supplies you need. You also help the local community the base is at instead of some guy ripping off the gov selling parts for outrageous prices. That is where you save money in the military.

This isn't how it works. There are a few problems.
1) Selling to the government requires a lot of paperwork. You can't just go buy it from your local hardware store, sorry.
2) The reason you hear stories about the $400 hammer, is because they want a hammer you CAN'T get at the hardware store -- they take the specifications of two existing hammers, and combine them. No existing hammer manufacturer has the setup to produce those hammers, so they charge $400 per hammer to set up their production line for a hammer to the specifications -- it's the governments inefficiency (failure to change specifications when asked) that causes the high prices, not greed.

https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/advgsa...V.S10&sk=AB5BE&query=hammer&find.x=0&find.y=0

The first result, it looks like it retails for $25. Government buys it for $20 per.

Now, the government also tends to get prices better than those on the schedules for large purchases, so keep that in mind.
 
Well nukes are the big "if"
China wouldnt run that risk, what 200 crappy nukes against 2000 of the finest (tho 200 would be enough)

I think you are a little bit off on your assumptions about US nukes.

Most of our nukes are around 30-50 years old. We aren't talking the finest. When Iran and North Korea get advanced nuclear abilities, their nukes will better than ours.

The military would like to retire some of our nuclear arsenal and build ones that are better.

We aren't even sure if half our nukes would even go off...

As for Afghanistan, countries like France, Spain, Ita;y, Germany need to start genuinely contributing

How about all over the world. I'm tired of being the policing force of the world. Let the rest of the world do it.

Let's see Europe start putting their troops in harms way, and see how well that goes.
 
I wouldn't be too sure about the outcome. If neither side used nukes, it would become a war of attrition. We were "attrited" out of Vietnam. Keep in mind that the US has not won a war against a significant military power since WW II.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

Even if we decide to use nukes, there's no guarantee that we will actually be able to.

For one thing, China has demonstrated the ability to take out satellites. Every one of our nukes is satellite guided. This means that China has the ability to make sure our nukes do not reach the target.

How scary is that. China can nuke us, and we may not be able to nuke China.

That's if our nukes even still work.
 
I think you are a little bit off on your assumptions about US nukes.

Most of our nukes are around 30-50 years old. We aren't talking the finest. When Iran and North Korea get advanced nuclear abilities, their nukes will better than ours.

The military would like to retire some of our nuclear arsenal and build ones that are better.

We aren't even sure if half our nukes would even go off...
....
ROFLMAO... this is the most crazy and saddest comment I have ever read. You truly have no knowledge of the US nuclear program, do you??
 
Oh, I absolutely agree.

Even if we decide to use nukes, there's no guarantee that we will actually be able to.

For one thing, China has demonstrated the ability to take out satellites. Every one of our nukes is satellite guided. This means that China has the ability to make sure our nukes do not reach the target.

How scary is that. China can nuke us, and we may not be able to nuke China.

That's if our nukes even still work.
ROFLMAO... your credibility is shot, gone. No idea what you're talking about, at all!!!

:D:D:D
 
Oh, I absolutely agree.

Even if we decide to use nukes, there's no guarantee that we will actually be able to.

For one thing, China has demonstrated the ability to take out satellites. Every one of our nukes is satellite guided. This means that China has the ability to make sure our nukes do not reach the target.

How scary is that. China can nuke us, and we may not be able to nuke China.

That's if our nukes even still work.


Someone has been playing too many video games....
 
I think you are a little bit off on your assumptions about US nukes.
I believe the US has over 4500 nukes (tho this will fall with the new START [?])
I'd say 2000 is a reasonable estimate of ones developed after the early 70's, which should be all 100% fine

Most of our nukes are around 30-50 years old. We aren't talking the finest.
seems more like 20-40 years old
When Iran and North Korea get advanced nuclear abilities, their nukes will better than ours.
I highly doubt that
Seriously
The military would like to retire some of our nuclear arsenal and build ones that are better.
of course they would
new ships, APCs, helis, tanks too ;)
We aren't even sure if half our nukes would even go off...
ah come on..

How about all over the world. I'm tired of being the policing force of the world. Let the rest of the world do it.

Let's see Europe start putting their troops in harms way, and see how well that goes.
the UK does
Other countries focus on defensive action (eg Germany)
I'd certainly like to see them contribute more
An EU military is probably the way to go, and Maastricht, Nice & Lisbon were important steps towards that, but it'll take quite a while (25 years at the least)

As for other countries: who? Japan cant really, China doesnt have the Ai & Sea capabilities and seems to be quite wary of helping NATO out, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico possibly but I am not completely up on their militaries (tho I could see Brazil joining NATO [I know its South Atlantic :rolleyes:] if heir economic growth coninues and their lust for influence likewise), Russia and NATO dont mix, India LOL, Australia helps out, who else?
 
Oh, I absolutely agree.

Even if we decide to use nukes, there's no guarantee that we will actually be able to.

For one thing, China has demonstrated the ability to take out satellites. Every one of our nukes is satellite guided. This means that China has the ability to make sure our nukes do not reach the target.

How scary is that. China can nuke us, and we may not be able to nuke China.

That's if our nukes even still work.

This is 100% wrong as I know the nukes that we have on the B-52 was not satellite guided. I should know as I was a crew chief on it. You learn a few things about the weapons. So you need to ck your sources again.
 
There are more than 4500 nukes. Look at the 3 bombers the Air Force has. There are the B-52, B-1B, B-2. Not to mention the ones fighters can carry. Not even counting the ones the navy and army has.
 
There are more than 4500 nukes. Look at the 3 bombers the Air Force has. There are the B-52, B-1B, B-2. Not to mention the ones fighters can carry. Not even counting the ones the navy and army has.

CMIIW, but wasnt the use of B-52's to carry nuclear warheads discontinued?
 
Back
Top Bottom