Reply With Quote
I agree that we should kill some of our programs, but half seems a bit much (pulling this out of my ass, of course.)
Hopefully, it's not my job that would be cut though. Cybersecurity is an area where we need focus, I feel.
By Benjamin H. Friedman Benjamin H. Friedman – Mon Apr 27, 5:00 am ET
Washington – Hawks depicted the cuts that Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently proposed for the Pentagon's weapons programs as a savage assault on the military industrial complex. They insisted that Secretary Gates would leave us prostrate before future rivals.
Counterinsurgency enthusiasts, meanwhile cheered Mr. Gates's willingness to swap high-tech platforms for capabilities suited to the unconventional conflicts we are fighting.
The truth is that the Gates proposal is both too cautious and inadequate. After all, Gates isn't cutting non-war-related military spending; he's raising it slightly, to a whopping $534 billion.
If he has his druthers, the next military budget will look much like this one: It will still serve excessive objectives. We will still defend allies that can defend themselves, fight in other people's civil wars in a vain effort to "fix" their states, and burn tax dollars to serve the hubristic notion that US military hegemony is what keeps the world safe.
To really keep us safe, we should slash defense spending. Americans should prepare for fewer wars, not different ones. Far from providing our defense, our military posture endangers us. It drags us into others' conflicts, provokes animosity, and wastes resources. We need a defense budget worthy of the name. We need military restraint. And that would allow us to cut defense spending roughly in half.
Two points demonstrate how unambitious the Gates proposal is.
First, he would just replace most canceled programs. Gates suggested ending production of the Air Force's premier fighter, the F-22. But he wants to accelerate the Joint Strike Fighter program and to buy more F-18s. He would delay the Navy's procurement of cruisers and its next carrier, but only slightly. He would end the Navy's DDG-1000 destroyer program, but buy more of the Navy's older Arleigh Burke class destroyer, and keep buying the Navy's littoral combat ship.
He proposes breaking up the Army's modernization program, the Future Combat Systems, and canceling some of the vehicles – but they will be replaced with others. All told, spending on a national missile defense program would be cut by only about 15 percent.
Second, the military's size will barely budge under this plan. Yes, the Army would grow to only 45 brigade combat teams rather than 48, as was planned. But the people who were to fill out the 48 would be stuffed into 45 – the units will have higher readiness. The Navy is likely to shrink to 10 carrier battle groups instead of 11, but the decline will take decades. The Air Force will shrink only slightly. Gates wants to halt personnel reductions in the Air Force and Navy and continue to expand the Army and Marines by 90,000 servicemen.
To understand why that is conservative, consider how much we spend on defense relative to both our purported rivals and our past. Our defense budget is almost half the world's, even leaving out nuclear weapons, the wars, veterans, and homeland security. It is also more than we spent at any point during the cold war. When that struggle ended, we simply gave back the Reagan buildup and kept spending at average cold war levels. Then we began another buildup in 1998 that nearly doubled nonwar defense spending.
There are no enemies to justify such spending. Invasion and civil war are unthinkable here. North Korea, Syria, and Iran trouble their citizens and neighbors, but with small economies, shoddy militaries, and a desire to survive, they pose little threat to us. Their combined military spending is one-sixtieth of ours.
Russia and China are incapable of territorial expansion that should pose any worry, unless we put our troops on their borders. China's defense spending is less than one-fifth of ours. We spend more researching and developing new weapons than Russia spends on its military. And with an economy larger than ours, the European Union can protect itself. Our biggest security problem, terrorism, is chiefly an intelligence problem arising from a Muslim civil war. Our military has little to do with it.
We should embrace this geopolitical fortune, not look for trouble. If we decided to avoid Iraq-style occupations and fight only to defend ourselves or important allies, we could cut our ground forces in half.
If we admitted that we are not going to fight a war with China anytime soon, we could retire chunks of the Air Force and Navy that are justified by that mission. Even with a far smaller defense budget, ours will remain the world's most powerful military by a large margin. The recently enacted GI Bill, which gives veterans a subsidized or free college education, offers a vehicle for transitioning military personnel into the civilian economy.
Of course, powerful interests benefit from heavy defense spending, and cutting the military budget would be a tough sell. Both political parties believe that American primacy is the route to safety. But they're wrong.
A more restrained approach to defense is what would make us safer.
Benjamin H. Friedman is a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies at the Cato Ins ute and a PhD candidate in political science at the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090427/cm_csm/yfriedman
---------------------
We are still fighting WW2 and the Cold War, and completely ignoring the demands that reality is making on our military.
It is a bit like using a hammer to drive screws.
I agree that we should kill some of our programs, but half seems a bit much (pulling this out of my ass, of course.)
Hopefully, it's not my job that would be cut though. Cybersecurity is an area where we need focus, I feel.
Given Chinese and Russian intelligence capacity in that area that has very clearly been demonstrated, I would agree.
We do not need heavy divisions of tanks to fight our security threats going forward.
I worked on the security field in the private sector myself. Can't say too much more than that unfortunately. Ain't NDAs grand?
But I agree completely that Cybersecurity needs to be kept as tight as possible.
ElNono, guessing you're a contractor? Ever work with the AF? I'm a 3C2 myself.
I think my biggest question is, where is the most effective place to make cuts? Should it be on new spending, such as R&D? Should it be to lower the amount of current equipment/vehicles/etc we have? Or should it be to lower the amount of people serving to cut down on costs such as retirement and medical plans?
And this is somewhat obvious, but before the budget gets cut, I'd prefer we lower our overseas engagement first, then the other way around.
Probably a combination of a lot of things.
I think the author of the article in the OP was probably pulling a figure out of his butt as well.
It would not surprise me though, that a truly objective over-view of the Pentagon's budget would find a massive amount of wasteful spending.
While it is certainly nice to have $200M jet fighters, they don't build schools to "capture the hearts and minds" of populations that might by sympathetic to al Qaeda ideology.
True, but, even though it seems the Army is leaning towards counter-insurgency ops right now, that's no guarantee that the next war might not be a more 'classic' warfare instance.
It may very well be that the presence of such fighters is what actually keeps them from being used, if you catch my drift. Countries are less likely to go at us full-bore because they know they can't.
Of course, I'm not sure on the amount of such weaponry/equipment needed to achieve that effect. I'm certainly not dismissing the possibility we could maintain it with 1/2 to 2/3 of what we have now.
I'm not a citizen (yet), so no, I can't work for the military (yet). We do have the CECOM here though, and they seem to have some interesting jobs. Although I think they're closing the fort here soon.
I agree we need to get our together overseas before you start thinking about cuts.
No kidding. Half is rediuculous.
I don't know what all is being spent in the military today, but it has generally been too little rather than too much. Since I am no longer close, I don't know now. There is no Strategic Air Command like it used to be, since the ending of the cold war. There are still real threats, and we need to maintain the best military in the world.
Against who, exactly?
Russia? Pfft. Don't get me started on how pathetic their military is.
China? pfft. We are their biggest customer, and they hold a huge amount of our debt. Not bloody likely, ever.
All of the major industrialized countries are our allies, and even if they weren't their militaries suck. European countries spend nuts on defense, and get what they pay for.
There is no credible threat to the US from any current nation-state, nor any threat on the horizen from any potential rival.
Name one.
I see no reason to cut in half one of the only things that government should actually being doing. There needs to be some adjustments though.
1. R&D needs to stay as funded as possible. If you cut this and you have a fight on the horizon later on, you aren't going to be able to fast-track the technology that would of taken years to develop. Things like unmanned aerial vehicles and upgrades to older tech should be a priority.
2. Dump useless R&D. Next generation stealth ships are expensive and there is no one with which to fight them with. Cut the amount of heavy armor. Fund more light armor.
3. Dump nuclear weapons with the exception of ballistic missile submarines, just like the U.K. did. This gets rid of a useless arsenal that is capable of destroying the world many times over and the cost of maintaining it all. Nuclear missile subs keep the ability for a counter strike and mutually assured destruction to deter first strike capabilities of anyone that might be interested in doing so.
4. Nuclear missile defense: yay or nay?
Modern warfare is fought with infantry, light vehicles, attack helicopters, drones, attack aircraft, aircraft carriers, and guided missile cruisers. Retool to focus there. The armed forces have been working towards that goal for a while now, bu if they will ever reach it is an open question.
Also, you need to watch for real world threats. Things are not always as they seem. It is nice to think that we live in modern and sophisticated times where modern nations don't go to war with each other, but the fact is that as natural resources get depleted, someone is going to make a move to grab land and alliances and treaties will be broken in the process.
Countries with an actual military that could fight the U.S. on some level: U.K., France, Germany, Israel, China, Russia. They are all allies, although we aren't nearly as close with China and Russia as we are with Europe. There are a variety of countries that have imported modern weapons systems like Turkey, Mexico, Canada, etc, but are no threat.
I have no idea where the world is headed and who will be our enemy in the future. The military could cut it's budget by a good chunk by refocusing their spending into areas more suited towards urban warfare.
I agree with all of what you say. With missile defdense, let's remember that it is not exclusively nuclear missile defense. I say we stay the course of development here.
I'd like to add however. Welfare programs are not authorized by cons ution. Any cuts percentage wise to the military, I want to see cut more in social programs!
*shudders at that quote*
Don't remind me of ol Dubya.
Yes, they suck NOW. However, these airplanes are designed to last for the next 40-50 years. While those countries might not be in power NOW, it was only 25-30 years or so that we were in the Cold War.
Also, and this is realpolitik, but our ridiculous military might helps us politically in two ways. One, it discourages even a few countries banding together to take us down. More importantly, two, it allows us to secure other countries during times of emergency/strife/etc until international forces can get there, which helps to build trust/goodwill among the international community. (Note: This is different than starting wars, but more responding to countries that are going to crap by providing airdrops and security for humanitarian aid.)
I think the military should have been cut in spending a long time ago. And I KNOW that alot of it is wasteful spending.
I work at Office Depot and the DI in training from Lackland always want their training manuals shrunk down and bound...the infamous 36-3. I asked one of them if they get reimbursed for it and he was like no. We pay for it out of pocket.
My only thought was how is this possible? We just spent 8 years on a President that did nothing but probably quadruple the military spending for "war on terror" and these guys can't get these books for free? The Air Force can't give them those books already the way they want them? It makes no sense.
With Iran developing a nuke, and N. Korea testing long range missiles, are you saying we should not increase our defense capacity there?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-29-2009 at 12:27 PM. Reason: Serious mistake, added the word "not"
M. A. D.
Good enough for grampa, good enough for me.
North Korea having nukes is only a concern insofaras they might sell the technology.
I just don't see the benefit (dubious) to be worth the cost (immense).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
