Defense spending

[Crazyhole]

We're going to spend almost 700 billion bucks this year on defense. Does anybody think that this isnt a ridiculous amount of money? There isnt a single war going on in the western hemisphere currently and only a handful of them worldwide. We spend over 3 times as much as China but they are supposedly catching up with us.

 

[sk8knight]

We're going to spend almost 700 billion bucks this year on defense. Does anybody think that this isnt a ridiculous amount of money? There isnt a single war going on in the western hemisphere currently and only a handful of them worldwide. We spend over 3 times as much as China but they are supposedly catching up with us.

They’re “catching” us because they’re stealing all of their R&D from the western world. Saves them a ton of money. Although it’s much more complex than that. We also lump a ton of stuff into “defense” that benefits America well beyond just soldiers, guns, planes, and ships.

 

[UCFKnight85]

They’re “catching” us because they’re stealing all of their R&D from the western world. Saves them a ton of money. Although it’s much more complex than that. We also lump a ton of stuff into “defense” that benefits America well beyond just soldiers, guns, planes, and ships.

Chinese budgets are also completely hidden and manipulated. Whatever they report is what they want people to think- and nothing more. They spend far, far, far more than what is published. The military is engrained into the economy.

Our defense budget represents 3.6% of GDP which is well below historical norms.

 

[Knightsweat]

We're going to spend almost 700 billion bucks this year on defense. Does anybody think that this isnt a ridiculous amount of money? There isnt a single war going on in the western hemisphere currently and only a handful of them worldwide. We spend over 3 times as much as China but they are supposedly catching up with us.

Yeah. Sorry, but you should do some research on why we spend what we spend on defense, as well as the money spent on R&D that keeps us in a superior position globally. China, Russia, and several other countries would love to pull us down.

You reap the rewards of being a citizen of the greatest military in the world, so please be informed about why it costs that much, and just be thankful were on the winning side of this arms race. The NRE required to keep that edge is expensive, but it beats the alternative.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I agree we spend a shit ton, but its not really an accurate representation going solely off dollar amounts, given the huge differences between how our militaries are funded. For example Russia/china pay their conscripts next to the nothing, where as personnel funding is a huge part of our budget.

 

[Crazyhole]

Chinese budgets are also completely hidden and manipulated. Whatever they report is what they want people to think- and nothing more. They spend far, far, far more than what is published. The military is engrained into the economy.

Our defense budget represents 3.6% of GDP which is well below historical norms.

Thats a pretty good point, other than the 3.6% of GDP part. It's still raw dollars and 700 billion is a lot of money when we are already ahead of everyone else. China shouldnt be catching up to us if they are spending less than a 3rd of the money.


We always hear about our crumbling infrastructure and how it needs some sort of massive investment. Well, our military technology is on those same lines but we are spending in a way that this shouldnt be the case. Why? Where is that money going? Our jets, tanks, and armory should be light years ahead of everyone else just simply due to the fact that we outspend everyone else, but we are told that they are catching up to us.

How does this point to anything other than what eisenhower warned against?

 

[Knightsweat]

Thats a pretty good point, other than the 3.6% of GDP part. It's still raw dollars and 700 billion is a lot of money when we are already ahead of everyone else. China shouldnt be catching up to us if they are spending less than a 3rd of the money.


We always hear about our crumbling infrastructure and how it needs some sort of massive investment. Well, our military technology is on those same lines but we are spending in a way that this shouldnt be the case. Why? Where is that money going? Our jets, tanks, and armory should be light years ahead of everyone else just simply due to the fact that we outspend everyone else, but we are told that they are catching up to us.

How does this point to anything other than what eisenhower warned against?

How do you know if we aren't light years ahead? You know what you see in media and other sources. It doesn't mean that's accurate....

 

[UCFWayne]

we spend too much. i really wish we could cut down on the massive amounts of waste. then trim the budget to more accurately reflect the reality. i wish we did this across the board, not just the military.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Thats a pretty good point, other than the 3.6% of GDP part. It's still raw dollars and 700 billion is a lot of money when we are already ahead of everyone else. China shouldnt be catching up to us if they are spending less than a 3rd of the money.


We always hear about our crumbling infrastructure and how it needs some sort of massive investment. Well, our military technology is on those same lines but we are spending in a way that this shouldnt be the case. Why? Where is that money going? Our jets, tanks, and armory should be light years ahead of everyone else just simply due to the fact that we outspend everyone else, but we are told that they are catching up to us.

How does this point to anything other than what eisenhower warned against?

To put this nicely- you should read up a lot more on this subject and then return here. They aren’t light years ahead of us.

 

[Knightsweat]

To put this nicely- you should read up a lot more on this subject and then return here. They aren’t light years ahead of us.

He didnt say that. He said WE should be light years ahead, given our spending..

I'm not going to get into details but trust me when I say that the costs associated with defense spending is usually associated with the cost of design requirements, specialty materials, and the government's qualification processes involved with providing our troops with safe, effective weapon systems that provide us the security a super power requires. 700 billion is cheap when you see the magnitude of the entire picture. That's why i suggest people study it, so they can understand the reality, instead of the clap trap you see in the media.

 

[Crazyhole]

How do you know if we aren't light years ahead? You know what you see in media and other sources. It doesn't mean that's accurate....

We've had 2 wars in the last 20 years and nothing we did demonstrated it if thats the case. We have drones, they have drones. We have GPS bombs, they have GPS bombs. Yes, Iraq was impressive but if you outspend your competition as much as we have you'd think it would be obvious.

 

[Knightsweat]

We've had 2 wars in the last 20 years and nothing we did demonstrated it if thats the case. We have drones, they have drones. We have GPS bombs, they have GPS bombs. Yes, Iraq was impressive but if you outspend your competition as much as we have you'd think it would be obvious.

You're quoting what someone has told you, either from print or TV or the internet. Trust me when I say its chess, not checkers.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

To have peace, you must prepare for war.

 

[Knightsweat]

To have peace, you must prepare for war.

Sun Tzu, or Ra's Al Ghul?**

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Sun Tzu, or Ra's Al Ghul?**

The Simpson’s.

 

[Knightsweat]

The Simpson’s.

Bah! That was my next guess....

 

[UCFKnight85]

We've had 2 wars in the last 20 years and nothing we did demonstrated it if thats the case. We have drones, they have drones. We have GPS bombs, they have GPS bombs. Yes, Iraq was impressive but if you outspend your competition as much as we have you'd think it would be obvious.

Huh? I don't even follow what you're attempting to say.

The Taliban and ISIS had drones? GPS guided bombs?

 

[UCFBS]

We're going to spend almost 700 billion bucks this year on defense. Does anybody think that this isnt a ridiculous amount of money?

Actually, no. Historically it's very low for the US.

We've typically been 25-33%, and now we're less than 20%, of the federal budget. Also realized that includes ...

1. Continuing benefits for LBJ to Reagan-era veterans, when the military was much bigger
2. DARPA and R&D that is heavily feeding Academia, etc..., many that are 'humanitarian'
3. Support of civilian programs and systems that cannot be handled by 'uncleared' personnel (e.g., NASA)

That's why even if we gutted the US military, go down to only four (4) carrier groups (from nearly a dozen), fold the USAF into the US Army again and kill the F-35 -- basically kill 75% of the US military -- we're talking only about a 25% savings -- maximum.

Everything costs. Education costs, just the government alone, $1,800B in the US, and over half is just college. If we gutted the DoD, and ended all benefits to all veterans, we still couldn't pay for just the government's portion of college educations.

NOTE: Education, like law enforcement and medicaid/health insurance, is largely paid by states. Less than 1/6th of education is federally funded. Aggregate state budgets >> US federal​

There isnt a single war going on in the western hemisphere currently and only a handful of them worldwide.

We spend over 3 times as much as China but they are supposedly catching up with us.

Yes, because costs in China are much less.

 

[UCFBS]

Huh? I don't even follow what you're attempting to say. The Taliban and ISIS had drones? GPS guided bombs?

Yes. It's called asymmetric warfare. What costs the US billions costs them only tens of thousands, and they are faster-to-deploy (<18 weeks v. 18+ months).

Trump-Mattis, to their credit, finally started fighting war on Daesh (ISIS) like it needed to be. You treat them like an army, and you destroy them like one. That's why they are greatly reduced in capability now.

But that isn't an option in population centers and during insurgencies. At least now how the US fights wars. UK, France, et al. European Imperialists were (are?) another story.

As I always say ... if the US' invasion of Iraq was the alleged 10th Crusade, what about all the imperialism of Britain, France, Italy ... even Belgium and others?

 

[Crazyhole]

Actually, no. Historically it's very low for the US.

We've typically been 25-33%, and now we're less than 20%, of the federal budget. Also realized that includes ...

1. Continuing benefits for LBJ to Reagan-era veterans, when the military was much bigger
2. DARPA and R&D that is heavily feeding Academia, etc..., many that are 'humanitarian'
3. Support of civilian programs and systems that cannot be handled by 'uncleared' personnel (e.g., NASA)

That's why even if we gutted the US military, go down to only four (4) carrier groups (from nearly a dozen), fold the USAF into the US Army again and kill the F-35 -- basically kill 75% of the US military -- we're talking only about a 25% savings -- maximum.

Everything costs. Education costs, just the government alone, $1,800B in the US, and over half is just college. If we gutted the DoD, and ended all benefits to all veterans, we still couldn't pay for just the government's portion of college educations.

NOTE: Education, like law enforcement and medicaid/health insurance, is largely paid by states. Less than 1/6th of education is federally funded. Aggregate state budgets >> US federal​

Yes, because costs in China are much less.

Thats in US dollars. They spend 1/3rd and are catching up? Explain.

 

[Knightsweat]

Thats in US dollars. They spend 1/3rd and are catching up? Explain.

It's been explained. You just dont like the answer?

 

[Crazyhole]

It's been explained. You just dont like the answer?

Not really.

What threats exist today?
Are we at war, or are there wars that we can get drug into?
How can China or Russia catch up to us while spending 1/10th to 1/3rd of what we do?
What amount is too much? If 700 billion is low historically then why not spend 1.2 trillion? 2.2 Trillion?
At what point do we reach the point of diminishing returns?
If we cut spending by 1/2, how much does that increase the likelihood of being attacked and overwhelmed by foreign countries?
Could and should we redirect part of that money to get control of our southern border?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Not really.

What threats exist today?
Are we at war, or are there wars that we can get drug into?
How can China or Russia catch up to us while spending 1/10th to 1/3rd of what we do?
What amount is too much? If 700 billion is low historically then why not spend 1.2 trillion? 2.2 Trillion?
At what point do we reach the point of diminishing returns?
If we cut spending by 1/2, how much does that increase the likelihood of being attacked and overwhelmed by foreign countries?
Could and should we redirect part of that money to get control of our southern border?

Just buy some books on these subjects and read. You’ll need about 600 pages

 

[chemmie]

To put this nicely- you should read up a lot more on this subject and then return here.

Quote of the year. Hillarity.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Quote of the year. Hillarity.

Says the guy who thinks real life will soon mimic teenage dystopian novels

 

[Crazyhole]

Id just like to know what the threat is exactly? Just short of 50% of the worlds guns are held by US citizens (400 million). Thats 10 times the number of all of the militaries in the world. There is no existential threat of invasion from any country, period. On top of that, we aren't at war and theres no threat of it that indicates we should be spending this much money on traditional defense. Everybody freaks out about the idea of an EMP, but what good does it do against that threat if we are dumping billions into traditional warfare capacity? On top of that, which countries actually pose a realistic threat of an EMP that don't have an economic tie to us?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Id just like to know what the threat is exactly? Just short of 50% of the worlds guns are held by US citizens (400 million). Thats 10 times the number of all of the militaries in the world. There is no existential threat of invasion from any country, period. On top of that, we aren't at war and theres no threat of it that indicates we should be spending this much money on traditional defense. Everybody freaks out about the idea of an EMP, but what good does it do against that threat if we are dumping billions into traditional warfare capacity? On top of that, which countries actually pose a realistic threat of an EMP that don't have an economic tie to us?

If the threat of a CONUS invasion is the only reason you can find for maintaining superior military technology and capability, then I can only assume that you are/were against the US joining in the Allied fight against the Nazis?

Afterall, it was the Japanese who attacked us- and there was not one credible person who thought Germany could mount an invasion into the US.

Not to mention we're part of NATO and Article 5 means we're fighting in Europe if the Russians/Chinese/Etc decide they've had it with eastern front nations.

 

[Crazyhole]

If the threat of a CONUS invasion is the only reason you can find for maintaining superior military technology and capability, then I can only assume that you are/were against the US joining in the Allied fight against the Nazis?

Afterall, it was the Japanese who attacked us- and there was not one credible person who thought Germany could mount an invasion into the US.

Not to mention we're part of NATO and Article 5 means we're fighting in Europe if the Russians/Chinese/Etc decide they've had it with eastern front nations.

Is the chance of that happening worth the investment?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Is the chance of that happening worth the investment?

Again- you're asking things that require days of reading. Just go read.

I'm not being a dick but serious. The Naval Academy used to post videos from their staff on threat assessments and how the US military war plans for future events- like 20-30 years down the road.

 

[btbones]

Hillarity.

Perfectly sums up the Democratic presidential campaign last election.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Being the elite globalist enforcer is expensive.

 

[fried-chicken]

 

[UCFKnight85]

View embedded media

Pretty much what the CBO had already projected in 2016 thanks to a massive increase in 2020 and beyond in health care spending and Entitlement growth.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51384

 

[fried-chicken]

Pretty much what the CBO had already projected in 2016 thanks to a massive increase in 2020 and beyond in health care spending and Entitlement growth.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51384

Did you read what you linked?

18 - 549
19 - 710
20 - 798
21 - 890
22 - 1043
23 - 1080
24 - 1094

It's not pretty much the same is about 50% higher some years 20% higher others

 

[NinjaKnight]

Did you read what you linked?

18 - 549
19 - 710
20 - 798
21 - 890
22 - 1043
23 - 1080
24 - 1094

It's not pretty much the same is about 50% higher some years 20% higher others

You are trying to use logic on someone who swore up and down that he didn't like Chemmie's post. The same "like" we could all see. 85 does not partake of the same reality as the rest of us.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Did you read what you linked?

18 - 549
19 - 710
20 - 798
21 - 890
22 - 1043
23 - 1080
24 - 1094

It's not pretty much the same is about 50% higher some years 20% higher others

Eye roll

My point is that things were going to be bad no matter what. It was worth attempting to at least grow the economy better. We were going to $1T deficits again under current law in 2016.

 

[fried-chicken]

Eye roll

My point is that things were going to be bad no matter what. It was worth attempting to at least grow the economy better. We were going to $1T deficits again under current law in 2016.

Are you insane that you don't think 1.094Trillion is materially different than 1.2 or 1.3?

You don't think 549B is different than 800B because it's all high anyway?

The cumulative difference of the two budgets is 1.5 Trillion between now and the end of Trump's second term.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Are you insane that you don't think 1.094Trillion is materially different than 1.2 or 1.3?

You don't think 549B is different than 800B because it's all high anyway?

The cumulative difference of the two budgets is 1.5 Trillion between now and the end of Trump's second term.

Fine dude. The sky is falling. We were saved at $560B- we are doomed at $800B.

It’s Friday. Go have a beer and relax.

 

[UCFBS]

Being the elite globalist enforcer is expensive.

Yes and no.

Yes, it costs us about another $200-250B/year to maintain 3x the military than we need.

But no, if we cut the military to 1/3rd the size today, the existing liabilities + various R&D is still nearly $500B on its own.