Is 700 billion too much for defense?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by darksithpro, Mar 26, 2018.

  1. darksithpro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #1
    Thoughts? Also, foreigners, what do you think about the US spending 700 Billion in defense annually?

    https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...pentagon-plans-to-spend-that-extra-61-billion


    Congress was in a generous mood when it passed a spending bill last week, giving the military at minimum an additional $61 billion and boosting its overall budget to $700 billion this year.

    For some perspective, that $61 billion increase matches or even surpasses Russia's entire military budget each year. It's more than the Trump administration originally requested. It rivals two big spending surges during President George W. Bush's administration, in 2003 and 2008, which went to fund the Iraq War.
     
  2. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #2
    Maybe they can figure out some legal way to use some of this money to pay military or national guard to build a wall along the southern border?
     
  3. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #3

    That's not even the whole defense budget really. Old but still relevant: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/real-us-national-security-budget-1-trillion/

    That means this year the defense budget is likely north of $1.5-1.6 trillion
     
  4. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #4
    Yes of course. We have unsustainable spending, including the military.

    Many national security experts including DoD Joints Chief of Staff has stated that one of the most serious threats to US security is the Federal debt.
     
  5. darksithpro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #5

    The extra money is going to: https://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/03.21.18_fy18_omnibus_-_defense_-_summary.pdf

    For example, the bill includes: - $23.8 billion to procure 14 Navy ships, including funding for one carrier replacement, two DDG-51 guided missile destroyers, two Virginia-class submarines, three Littoral Combat Ships; one Expeditionary Sea Base; one Expeditionary Fast Transport; one amphibious ship replacement; one fleet oiler; one towing, salvage, and rescue ship; and one oceanographic survey ship; - $10.2 billion for 90 F-35 aircraft; - $1.8 billion for 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft; - $1.6 billion for 30 new build and 50 remanufactured Apache helicopters; - $1.1 billion for 56 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters; - $225 million for 20 MQ-1 Gray Eagle unmanned aerial vehicles; - $1.7 billion for 10 P-8A Poseidon aircraft; - $1.3 billion for 14 V-22 aircraft; - $2.9 billion for 18 KC-46 tanker aircraft; - $2.4 billion for 25 C/HC/KC/MC-130J aircraft; - $103 million for A-10 wing replacements; - $348 million for 116 Stryker Double V-Hull upgrades; - $300 million for Stryker lethality upgrades; - $1.1 billion for the upgrade of 85 Abrams tanks; - $483 million for the upgrade of 145 Bradley fighting vehicles; - $705.8 million for the Israeli Cooperative Programs; - $1.4 billion for three Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV); - $675 million for two Wideband Gap-filler Satellites - $220 million for National Guard High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) recapitalization, including $120 million specifically for ambulance modernization; and - $1.3 billion for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. 3 - $9.5 billion for the Missile Defense Agency, bringing the FY18 total for MDA to more than $11.3 billion when combined with the previously passed supplemental
     
  6. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
  7. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #7
    This is funding for equipment. Additional funds (I think $133B) are allocated to personnel and salaries. The is also permitted flexibility in how operational and maintenance funding can be spent. Would be nice if some personnel resources could be used for help in building a border wall.
     
  8. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
  9. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9
    Great post.... Also not mentioned, Things our defense/aerospace industries are building that are hush hush programs. Also, stealth and space isn't cheap and that's where a lot of the spending is going to as well.
     
  10. bopajuice, Mar 26, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018

    bopajuice Suspended

    bopajuice

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Location:
    Dark side of the moon
    #10
    I am sure those who have served recently could back me up, but not too long ago I remember trying to reach some service members regarding some interviews, and it took them a long time to get back to me. One guy called me back and apologized that he was really busy because it was the end of their fiscal year and they had to spend all the money they were allocated or their funding for next year would be less.

    Sounded to me like they were having trouble spending all the money they were given. This was during time of shrinking military budgets. Go figure. I am sure it's not like that for all branches of the military, but was interesting for me to hear this.
     
  11. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #11
    The whole damn budget is a slap in the face to everyone who voted for the man. This idea of "small government" conservatives is a sham. Big government is alive and well! It's amazing people still vote these idiots in. At least the democrats are up front with people, "we want to tax the **** out of you and hand it to this person."
     
  12. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    We spend far too much on our military. Ideally I’d like to see a drawdown on spending of 75% over 10 years. With the money we save I’d like to see half go towards reducing the deficit, and the other half invested in our infrastructure and education system.
     
  13. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
  14. darksithpro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #14
    Russian state media is surely spreading the propaganda recently, saying they can get passed US missile defense and launch nuclear strikes against us unscathed. Looks like cold war 2.0.

     
  15. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #15
    Yeah that's not going to happen. Cutting it by 75% would mean we spend $0 to keep our military up and functioning. 20-25% of the defense budget is payroll and benefits.
     
  16. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #16
    Considering I got out in 2008 I've seen budget cuts that grounded aircraft and ships. In case of a major crisis we would not be ready due to the lack of maintenance or old and aging equipment. Considering the Obama years made it even worse we have a lot of catching up to do.
     
  17. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
  18. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #18

    looks like Russia remembers how the US scared them into overspending on their military, which was a large contributor to their fall.
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #19
    It's a ridiculous amount of money to spend, especially for a nation that is technically at peace.

    The issue is this: The United States may very well, in the coming twenty or thirty years, find itself in a situation where a rising global economic and military superpower may challenge some of the capabilities that has allowed the US military to keep the peace since the end of WWII. The most logical such power being China.

    The problem is this: By spending so much money today, are we hobbling our ability to counter economic and military challenges ten or twenty years from now. The old "guns versus butter" debate. If we spend an extra hundred billion or so on infrastructure, healthcare, or education - as opposed to a military that is more than likely not going to be employed against the main adversary - will we be better off if and when that confrontation does come to pass.

    An extra hundred billion spent on education and infrastructure now will definitely make us all richer and better off a decade or so from now. We'll have more engineers, and programmers, better managers and administrators, a far bigger and more productive economy. And better able to respond to potential military threats.
     
  20. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #20
    Keep in mind we provide the majority or partial defense of some countries like Japan. If you remember Trump also called out the United Nation for countries for not providing their fair share of funding for coalition forces.
     
  21. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #21
    If we get into a hot war with China or Russia it won’t matter how much we spend since both both sides will be turned into a glow in the dark parking lot.
     
  22. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #22
    A hot war with China isn't the likely outcome.

    What is perhaps a more relevant parallel is the relative military strength and influence between Britain and the US from ~1900 and 1941.

    At the turn of the 20th century, Britain was the dominant world military and economic power. The British Royal Navy, built and maintained at a very high peacetime cost, maintained a world economic order in much the same way as the US military currently performs. The problems for Britain were twofold:

    One, it essentially bankrupted itself fighting two world wars. And, secondly, much of its peacetime military budget was spent on a weapons system (dreadnought battleships) that very rapidly became obsolete. For most of both world wars, Britain's fleet of battleships either sat on the sidelines waiting for a grand fleet action that never came along. Or ended up getting blown out of the water by submarines or military aircraft.

    From Britain (and the world's) point of view, this wasn't too terrible of a tragedy, as Britain was supplanted by the US as the guarantor of world maritime commerce. But there is no such guarantee that a rising China will do the job in a manner as agreeable to us as we would like.

    I am very much concerned that by devoting so much of US GNP to military spending, and diverting that spending from investments in infrastructure and education today, the US will find itself unable to match Chinese military spending twenty or thirty years from now. That the fleets of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines we pour so much treasure into building today will, in 2050, find themselves the same white elephants as HMS Prince of Wales and Hood did in 1941.

    USS Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford don't have to be sunk by enemy action to become irrelevant. But if we bankrupt ourselves and our nation in building weapons systems to fight the last war, we run the risk of leaving our children and grandchildren incapable of building a military capable of defending us against the threats of the second half of the 21st century.
     
  23. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #23
    We would obviously drastically reduce the overall size of he military with such a drastic budget cut, so we could stick with 20-25 percent of the remaining money going to payroll and benefits. If a major war breaks out where we have to get our numbers back up we can have a draft. We just need enough active duty troops to hold off an invasion until we can ramp up our numbers with a draft.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    Space certainly is cheap. That’s why Space X can do it.

    And stealth is pointless outside of a hot war with Russia/China that will never happen.

    --- Post Merged, Mar 26, 2018 ---
    I’m not sure why we care too much how the job is done. The bigger risk is that China doesn’t do it at all. Given their history of little interest outside their neighbourhood they might well not.
     
  25. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #25
    $61 billion would go a long way to rebuilding our vocational training schools so that we could meet the real challenges we may face in the digital age.
     

Share This Page