Lets discuss defense cuts in detail

I'm always reading ridiculous proposals like:

"We should cut military spending by 50%, we'd still spend more than the rest of the world."

This is an idiotic and simplistic idea because there are no specifics ever given. Just cutting the military by 50% isn't possible without major damage to our operational readiness. Lets discuss these cuts in detail with some actual numbers.

Lets start with the Navy:

US Naval Forces (combat related)

12 US Carrier Battle Groups each with 1 carrier, plus half dozen escorts and 1 Marine Expeditionary Unit including a Wasp/Tarawa class Heli carrier.

17 Ohio Class ICBM subs

4 Ohio Class Guided Missile Subs (non-nuclear)

52 SSN attack subs (50 L.A. Class, 2 Seawolf)

How many Carrier Battle Groups SHOULD the USA have?

How many ICBM Subs?

How many SSN's?

Now we'll look at the Army:

Active Duty Brigades: 37

Number on Deployment of that 37: 12

How many Active Duty Brigades SHOULD the USA have?

Marines:

18 Marine Regiments making up 6 Divisions as established by 1947 National Security Act

How many Marine Regiments should the USA have? Current US law requires 18.

Air Force:

Currently 302 active squadrons, mostly fighter sqadrons.

How many active squadrons should the USA have?


Now, simply eliminating 50% of the military budget is not going to mean that each of these numbers is automatically deleted by half. There are treaty commitments to consider, training requirements, troop safety equipment.

Basically, our military is too complex an organization just magically shave 50% off the top of and expect it to perform to the level that we require.

 

Of course it is. Doesn't mean realistic cuts aren't in store though.

The people that say we need to get rid of all of our foreign military bases need to go to this link: http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

Everyone needs to go to that link. Informative.

There were reasons why they made so many bases around the world.

Removing the bases will only create a problem that will require deployment of military forces, a la what history shows us of early 1900s America US foreign policy when there were hardly any, if any foreign military bases.

They've made so many of them permanent, that they're staring lost investment after lost investment right in the face. They clearly cannot continue at the pace they've burned at for decades. It's 2012. Too many things have happened. But they have so many big projects, infrastructure, personnel, you name it, that they are looking at losing because they simply cannot afford it any longer because of the ever competing and growing civilian costs.


The US military budget was something that we were warned about. I shouldn't say "we", because 'I' wasn't alive back when President Eisenhower broke the fourth wall and told the public about the grisly underbelly of things. It was allowed to grow against his warning, advice, and counsel. And throughout the years, while so many Americans have suffered on the streets, starving to death, our government has spent tens of trillions of dollars on defense.

Why hasn't that been fixed yet?

 

This isn't the 1950's. Things have completely and totally changed. Without the "military industrial complex" the conditions that are conducive to a truly globalized economy simply couldn't exist. The US Department of Defense is the primary guarantor of the stability and efficacy of the globalized economy. Eisenhower was wrong.

 

I wonder why a single nation is supposed to do all the military spending, while the rest of the world has chosen austerity in comparison to the United States. Either others should be urged to contribute too or that truly globalized economy you're talking about is imperialism all over again. Or is there another advantage to unilateral "Global Defense sponsored by the USA" that I'm missing?

 

Here are the main reasons U.S. spending is so great:

1.) It has by far the largest economy in the world, resulting it greater numbers. (25% of the world's GDP)
2.) Other "first world" countries, Japan, South Korea, England, France, Germany (the rest of Europe) spend relatively little.
a) Japan/South Korea rely on the U.S.
b) European countries are facing serious financial problems with large social programs. Most spend below what they agreed to for NATO.
C) European countries can rely on the U.S./NATO/EU allies for protection
3.) It has massive borders and two large oceans to protect
4.) Since 9/11 it's been fighting continuously. Expenditures would probably be 60-70% what they are now otherwise.
5.) As the largest economy, it benefits the most from international trade. Most of it's trading partners are across large oceans. 25% of the Defense budget is allocated to the navy, the main power projecting tool of the U.S.

I think that these five points explain much of why the U.S. seems to spend so much. Europe has largely gutted its military and is paying a price for doing so. The recent Libya campaign and European reliance on U.S. intelligence, drones, command and control, and logistics support showed just how much capability Europeans have given up. The U.S. pays a lot for it's defense but you get what you pay for. The U.S. can project power anywhere in the world, deter anyone, and inflict its will. This may seem "imperialistic", but I don't think sending a MEU into Somalia or Haiti has any resemblance to what the British, Dutch, Roman Empires did. At its core, military power is just an extension of political power. Good will, negotiations, and international organizations only go so far. In the end it comes down to raw force, or the threat of raw force. Behind every flowery international conference is the "real" positions that every politician realizes exist. Iran didn't decide NOT to block the straits of Hormuz because of "international pressure" and diplomacy, they decided NOT to block the straits because they know that if they did, the U.S. Fifth fleet would come in and stomp them as they did in 1988. This political leverage is part of the reason the U.S. spends more than anyone else. This unrivaled military power gives them a tremendous advantage. It may seem sinister, but the U.S. is much more soft-handed than any other nation in its position in history has been. You'll also find that the most devastating wars occur when military parity exists between several nearby countries.

I'd also like to point out that the massive gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world in military spending and power probably keeps world wide expenditures down. China, Japan, Germany etc. could each double their defense budgets yet still not be close to the capabilities of the U.S....so why should they bother?

 

What you just described is called "Hegemonic Stability Theory" and it is one of the most hated concepts on the left. They want to beleive that the world has moved beyond the need for such things as a hegemon.

 

I can't speak to that length myself, but where I draw the line, is from a moral perspective. It has taken a lot of bullets and bombs to get America to where it is today, and frankly, I think the American populace has lost sight of their duty all these years. We have looked the other way so many times. So long as life was okay for us, it didn't matter what our military was doing. And this has been happening for over a hundred years! We've been sending gunboats and Marines to protect our "vital interests" and in a lot of cases, to protect "business interests". Protecting American businesses on foreign lands with military force. How is that a free market?

I mean, did you look at the link I posted, SG?

Does all of those deployments mean nothing to you?

You do realize that every time 'our boys' leave port, they kill 'someone else's', right?

But when is enough enough?

 

Is it not the job of the military to protect US civilian lives and property abroad?

 

So you would be tolerant of foreign countries sending their military to protect their interests in America?

Yes. I am also tired of that. The big ole double standard.

And way to gloss over the majority of my post. Must have interfered with your programming.

 

This isn't some elementary school class with "fairness" and "equality". It's global politics. Other countries are welcome to try and send their troops to U.S. shores to protect their interests. The vast majority of U.S. operations overseas are humanitarian and training missions. There is has been very little combat outside of the "wars." You'll also find that the U.S. doesn't tend to send troops into stable democratic countries, but more often than not, totalitarian ruled states or places in complete anarchy. Also, many of these incursions are done at the request of the host country or the international community. The U.S. is the only country that's really capable of deploying troops anywhere so the burden of humanitarian missions and Police actions tends to fall on them.

 

US actions abroad, if done to the US, would be an act of War.

Double-standards and hypocrisy means something, so don't think it doesn't because we're American. Our politicians preach on-and-on about how we're special and different and good and all of that. Well, our history disproves that. We look out for our own, which has its own subdivisions, and so forth, but we (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*) on a lot of other people. And you can be a good little nod yes man all you want, but I see a lot of fault in US military history, especially when you include the OSS and the CIA into it. There is no way that all of those missions were absolutely vital.

 

America has a manifest destiny to global hegemony and sometimes hegemony requires harsh action. I have zero guilt.

 

I can't get too specific because I do not know how many ships and soldiers, exactly, it would take to accomplish the mission I have in plan for our military. I can tell you, however, that we should concentrate on protecting international trade routes and US embassies, which would mean more emphasis on the Navy and the Marines and less emphasis on the administrative and logistic components of the Army and the Air Force.

 

Here is a more detailed response if you are interested. You're welcome to quote that thread in this one.

http://www.politicalforum.com/warfare-military/249708-reprioritizing-branches-military.html

 

Actually, most people are remarkably stupid when it comes to military spending. Ask the majority of them to name the largest expense of the military, and they will invariably say "war" or "weapons".

Wrong. Actually, the top 2 can tend to swap back and forth, but it is normally the same 2 items. In the 2010 budget, the #1 expenditure was "Operations and Maintenance". In other words, training and keeping our equipment working.

That often flip-flops with the current #2 item in 2010, Military Personnel. That means our pay.

These 2 items, Operations & Maintenance and Payroll make up $437.5 billion of a $683.7 billion Defense Budget. That is 64% of the Defense Budget, almost 2/3 of all military spending go to training, maintenance and pay.

So the answer is simple. If you wanna gut the budget, just pay the US military what China pays it's soldiers (around $500 a month). If you do that, you will probably save at least $70 billion right off the top.

 

I don't need you to admit anything, or to even feel anything, because I know the truth. The problem, however, is that if enough people are like you, i.e., don't care, then we would have a problem. And naturally so, we do have a problem. But in my estimation, I believe that the problem exists more in the fashion that the common person is unaware of our nations' 'realistic history'. They were spoon fed patriotism and nationalism and exceptionalism all their educational careers. It was propaganda that conditioned them into believing everything, so it will take a sizable propaganda campaign to awaken them from their slumbers.

 

Translation: I am correct, you are wrong, and I do not have to prove anything. My beliefs are my proof, nothing you say is of any importance. Delusion trumps facts.

 

Geo-politics changes over time...right now the emphasis is being placed in the Asia-Pacific; the Navy has won the budget battle and retained most of it's fighting
capabilities. Makes sense that they should, they bring their bases with them, while the Army and Air Force need land bases.

However, a bomber or a fighter refueled in flight by one of the Air Force’s new tankers is likely to get to hot spots a lot sooner than a warship....and the Air Force still has a vital role to play in providing overhead intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to the other services as the lead military service for space.

In addition the Air Force is responsible for Cyber defense, and if you don't think a cyber-attack on America's electronic infrastructure would be as devastating as a
2,000 lb. bomb dropped on Manhattan.

think again.

It's best to never put your eggs in one basket in terms of planning a future scenario and catering the defense needs to just that scenario.

Keep a balanced Air-Sea-Land Armed Forces.

 

How do you figure?

 

It doesnt have to be a discussion as to how many squadrons, ect we need. What we equip them with is a different story.

if we stop wasting money on new toys we dont need like the F-35 we'd save alot of money.

 

Interesting question(the OP) and Mushroom also contributed something to think about. I dont' feel qualified to say what we don't need- but I do think the first question is what we want our military to be able to do, and how much we are willing to spend to achieve it.

Unless you answer those two questions, you either allow those who don't want to spend money to gut the military(and not be able to achieve its objectives) or you allow those who want endless outlays of funds to bankrupt us. We cannot afford to either be able to do everything everywhere at once, or leave ourselves completely undefended.

I dont' have the answers to those questions- but we seriously have more than enough military spending to defend the United States- the question is are we spending the money in the right places to defend against the right attacks?

 

Actually, I do not think anybody is really "qualified" to make decisions like that. That is why we have a "Joint Chiefs of Staff", to help hammer out things like this. And that is a board of 7 individuals and their staff to help make those decisions.

As for the last, that is more a political then military decision. The Military does not make wars, it fights them as has been decided by political leadership. And that is generally a totally seperate budget from the "Defense Budget". The Defense Budget itself simply takes care of the military needs for an ongoing basis. And while you will see them rise in a time of war, this is generally to cover things like increased manpower, implementation of new training based upon new lessons learned, refurbishing new training facilities, and things like that.

 

we'd save a lot of money on F-35s and other systems if the Pentagon would make up it's mind on what it wanted. changing specs in the middle of development is the #1 cause of cost over runs and often included in the original bid.

as for not needing the F-35, the real moral of Aesop's "The Tortoise and the Hare" wasn't the slow and steady tripe, it was once you get ahead, stay ahead.

 

It is a sad day when the Department of Defense tells Congress that they do not need a certain program but Congress declares that the experts are wrong and decide to keep spending the money on that program because the places the system is being built is in their own districts.

There are plenty of places in the DoD budget where cuts could take place. DoD spending in 1980 was around $100 billion dollars. Today, it is about to hit $700 Billion. I do not know if anyone has actually read the book "Drift" by Rachel Maddow, but it talks about a very disturbing trend in our Presidents from both parties.

 

You're manipulating statistics. You're ignoring 32 years of inflation. Using a CPI calcutor that $100 billion would be approximately $300 billion in today's money. Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that the U.S. economy and tax base are much larger than they were in 1980. The most accurate way to compare the current defense budget is as a percentage of GDP. Depending on whether you count for "off budget" spending for Iraq/Afghanistan, the U.S. spends around 3.6%-5.0% of its GDP on defense. Since World War II, that's a relatively low number.