Scipio

Mind boggling numbers. I suppose I'll just throw them out there, and not try to make a point with them. It's just something to think about.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

Stare At The Sun

That is a very high, and very unneeded number. I don't see the need for the navy anymore, honestly. I also don't see why they don't combine the Marines and army. But this is coming from a non serving 19 year old civilian. So, meh, take that as it is.

Zeld2.0

Er I can see a place for the Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and other branches as they are, and IMO, they are fine.

But I do think spending has been high in a time when it should be focused on specific areas but instead has been put on a broad range.

There is no other superpower but we treat it as there is. Specialization to fight the wars we are now (urban one for example) would help. More into research and development and less into areas left over from the Cold War would help too.

llama8

Maybe we should be helping third world debt as opposed to throwing money at ways to blow things up and then blow the rubble up 50 more times for good luck.

BigGov

Well spending is high, it doesn't help anything that we are at war.

However Zeld, there is a superpower looming. China is growing very rapidly, and their weapon technology isn't something to laugh at.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

onetime2

Preparation is for wars of the future not necessarily wars of the present. It's difficult as hell to play catch up when faced with war.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Charlatan

I thought the goal was to work towards a world of peace...

Frankly if the US just stopped interfering with other nations they wouldn't be in a position where they have to prepare for war.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

onetime2

Ahh yes, it's the USA that's standing in the way of world peace. I guess 200+ years ago the world didn't build armies.

The goal is to continue living in a democracy that requires a military that can respond to opposing forces.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

apeman

that is true - if you want peace then prepare for war, or whatever the quote is

I don't think there's much danger of the US having to play catch up though, do you?

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

Derwood

Considering that the GOP sees Reagan as some sort of God, it isn't surprising that they are trying to best him in defense spending.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

onetime2

There is always a danger. And there is little doubt that there are many countries out there preparing for future wars. China makes no secret of their desire to modernize their military further, explore space, develop increasingly accurate and effective missiles, etc. Russia, despite its recent decline, remains a potential superpower.

The goal of the military is to keep as many of their soldiers alive as possible in a conflict. The preparations we make now save lives in the future. These preparations not only save our own lives but the lives of others. Discounting the arguments around why we went into Iraq, the simple fact is that our preparations allowed us to take the country with incredibly few casualties (on our side and Iraq's). Certainly people will decry the deaths that occurred in the invasion but, given the scale of invasion, it's among the most successful and casualty free military actions in history.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Kadath

$956 billion on defense, $324 billion on education.

I understand the need for defense spending. I'd just like it to not outstrip education by 200%.

__________________
it's quiet in here

roachboy

it seems naieve to limit consideration of american miltiary expenditures----look (for example) at the international arms trade in general, of which military expenditures constitute a part:

some data for your delectation:

http://www.globalpolicy org/empire/intervention/2004/0421weapons.htm

http://datacentre2.chass.utoronto.ca/military/

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ttt.nsf/j.../proliferation

(i know, i know--conservatives will see amnesty and go "eeew...." but just read the article---it is short, had a pretty graph showing long-term trends in weapons production and has some links at the end)

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/jdw.ja...=061004144701?

if you are curious about more general stasticial/information sources on international trade/globalilzation, which can be narrowed to look at the weapons trade in particular (takes some work):

http://jolis.worldbankimflib.org/nldbsmi.htm

so let's think about this for a minute. leading all others, but not alone in this regard by any means, american firms sell all kinds of weapons systems to anyone who can pay (within certain legal limits of course--and righteous private firms, those paragons of efficiency, would **never** circumvent legal restrictions on arms sales--think about the fine example provided by the reagan administration with reference to nicagarua). political instability is intensified by the availability of weapons. the american military, under the umbrella of certain policy guidlines, no matter how irrational (witness iraq), can get sent in to "Deal With " local fiasco by--well what?

at every step of this (obviously simplified, but not unreasonable) scenario, people die but profits continue to flow in to weapons systems manufacturers.

sounds good for business.

weapons systems manufacture does not really have to deal with problems of overproduction in the way say a refrigerator firm would. wars, big or little, address overproduction. the fact that actual human beings die is secondary.

profit is of course, in this political climate, above reproach, an unqualified good

therefore the situation above would have to be seen as win-win.

just a perspective to consider. for your amusement.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Lebell

Ahem, more relevence on a few of the preceding posts would be nice.

Anyway, while I am big on defense, I think that we need to reexamine some of our spending, especially on the new weapons systems (which we are doing) as well as on how our troops are positioned (which we are doing).

For example, as much as I like new toys, there is a question as to whether we really need the F22 Raptor at so many billion a plane as well as if we really need so many troop bases in Germany.

I DO think that we will continue to need large carrier groups, primarily because this is how we now project force in the world in lieu of those troop bases.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Dragonlich

As far as I could tell from news reports, this US defence spending includes the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore, it's only natural that the spending increased...

Charlatan

I was not inferring that the US is standing in the way of peace per se.

It is a fact that the US military and intelligence services have involved themselves in many (by that I mean a lot of) foriegn conflicts on the pretense that it was looking after American interests. This has inevitably lead to some in those nations not being all that happy with the US (just look at Latin America, South East Asia or the current Middle East conflict).

If America did not continue to stick its finger in other nations pies those nations might not have reason to want to harm Americans on their own soil.

Sure there are other nations who cause and perpetrate conflicts but we are only talking about the US and its military spending here.

I don't disagree that a nation needs to protect its sovriegnty is just thing the US spending on defense is a bit out of whack...

Maybe if they really spent it on defense rather than offense you might see a change in the numbers.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Scipio

I'll take responsibility for the lack of relevance on some posts, as I never really suggested a direction for the thread to take. That said, perhaps discussing whether or not this level of military spending is appropriate would work.

==========

I'm a Democrat, but I'm a hawk. I think it's great that we have a strong military, as long as we aren't tempted to use it for the wrong reasons. I think that our large military, and our commitment to shared defense with a number of counties (notably Europe, Austrailia, Japan, and Taiwan) results in less defense spending by those countries. Also, it might be more accurate to lump the military spending of the European NATO countries together.

So in other words, if we spent less, other countries would spend more. Our military protects not just the US, but a ton of other countries as well.

I'll go ahead and agree with lebell on two points. First, that we need to rethink our forward basing structure, particularly Germany, and that we need to keep aircraft carrier battle groups.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

Seaver

1) Wars cost money... we're fighting two at the same time.

2) Having a large active military takes lots of money.

3) Your quote is false:

No, your elected politicians have involved the military and intelligence services into these countries. The military doesnt do any active involvement in anything not ordered by your elected civilian forces.

4) Your quote:

Any Military leader is well aware of this discussion, it comes up after ever major conflict since the revolutionary war. It left us with our pants down for every war from the War of 1812, all the way to the Korean War.

5) Your Amnesty site takes facts and derives crap from them. They include 80s arms poliferation yet dont look at the reason behind it. You ever think that the Afghan War helped that?

China, France, Germany, Israel, the US, Japan, etc. all hated the Soviet Union and wanted them to fail, so helped the Mujahadinn. The US werent the only country to do this.

Scipio you're correct when you said:

We do need to do an overview on military bases and changing world. It's already been done and we are planning to pull out of Germany (funny thing... they hated us when we were there now they're begging us not to go in fears they'll go into a depression).

Can you name a single country with any halfway decent military industrial setup that doesnt? Amazingly enough France/Germany (those most opposed to the Iraq war), were found to be doing the most dealings with them. Billions in brand new surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weaponry, and body armor have been found... with the date as soon as 2000 on them. Oh wait... what happened to the UN agreement that was *gasp* co-written by them.

My point? Every country with a military base sells their weapons, it keeps the costs down. But if you want to blame someone the US isnt *quite* as bad as most other countries. China selling their anti-ship missiles and sea-mines to Iran (who in turn used it on US ships killing our sailors. France selling to Iraq and Argentina (knowing of their planned attack on the Faulklins).

hammer4all

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig

http://www.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo?rd=436

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/downlo...litary_map.pdf

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

It's not just the Iraqi war that has made our military budget so huge. Even our peacetime budget is larger than like the next 50 countries combined. When is enough, enough?

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
--Dwight D. Eisenhower; farewell speech as President, January 17, 1961.

reconmike

That Warresisters site is pretty funny thanks for the laugh,
Advocating non-payment of IRS tax as almost risk free I am still smiling over the site. (bookmarked also for when I need a good chuckle).

Is there a site somewhere so I can refuse to send my tax dollars to welfare, and government handouts?

I think it is better to pay to be protected, or one day the situation might occur where you might have to pick up a rifle, or run.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?