I’ll try to stay off my soapbox, but two points are worth mentioning. First, as noted by McNeal, is that the primary function of the federal government is to provide for the common defense — not health care, green initiatives (readers: please don’t try to combine global warming projections into security, as some are wont to do. It’s lame) and corporate bailouts.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, is the fact that our powerful military exists to prevent a war as much as it exists to win a war. Si vis pacem, para bellum, if you will. One can argue that our strategic nuclear deterrent accomplishes this well enough, but I’m not convinced. I’d rather spend 5%-6% of our GDP on ensuring we never have to suffer through another WWI or WWII. One can argue Vietnam, Iraq, et al… but neither of those conflicts came close to the cost of the major theater level wars — both in lives and treasure lost.
Back in the day, people ridiculed Reagan’s “Peace through strength.” When December 1991 rolled around, no one was laughing.
–John Noonan
{ 91 comments… read them below or add one }
4% of GDP is the conservative version of liberal(I’ll call them progressives from now on) entitlement spending.
Establish a overall strategy of what you want based on national imperatives, and spend based on that strategy. What we get is conservatives(while meaning well)spending like liberals on defense?
I wouldn’t really give a damn if we bought everything on our hardware dream list, as long as American’s taxes rose in accordance to pay for it.
I read the Heritage Foundation from time to time, and a lot of what they say makes sense, but like all ideology, it has a bunch of inconsistencies littered throughout.
If a peer competitor was spending half of what we spend, I’d happily bump defense spending back up to 5 or 6%. But when you’re spending as much money as we spend it makes using military force tremendously tempting, rather than other, less gratifying but ultimately both cheaper and more effective means of getting what we want. We don’t have any peer competitors and spending like we do doesn’t make much sense.
I sure hope we are not going back to the military of the Clinton days. Those were rough times.
Actually, “provide for the common defense” is fairly far down the list in the preamble to the Constitution. It comes after “form a more perfect Union, establish justice” and “insure domestic Tranquility.” So there goes your introductory point.
As to this:
“I’d rather spend 5%-6% of our GDP on ensuring we never have to suffer through another WWI or WWII. ”
Before both WWI and WWII, there were nations that were _outspending_ the United States on their militaries. Right now, we don’t even have people spending close to half of what we do.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19666/funding_us_counterinsurgency.html?breadcrumb=%2F
Funding the U.S. Counterinsurgency Wars
“A double transformation would be expensive, disruptive, and politically difficult. But it would also be much closer to the historical norm for U.S. war making. In the early 1940s the United States created a powerful conventional military virtually from scratch in order to win a war. It then demobilized it and started over again for Korea and again for Vietnam. This was hardly ideal. But it was also unavoidable. The traditionalist argument for retaining high-tech conventional capability in the midst of multiple ongoing low-intensity wars is like arguing in 1943 that we cannot transform to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan without hedging against a future war with the Viet Cong. Budgeting, like strategy, is about choices. In this budget debate, we may have to choose the present over the future.”
Makes sense, considering we are fighting and borrowing(still won’t raise war taxes)for two wars.
Obama said he was going to stabilize the economy, create jobs, make universal healthcare a reality and BALANCE THE BUDGET.
Guess how he is going to do it…..
I am not against cutting military spending. Especially since it seems every military contact that is given out results in a 10,000% increase from the original price….
We could probably do very well by pulling a great deal of our people out of Europe. Make them actually defend themselves. The Cold war is over.
We do not need bases in Turkey since we are pulling out of Iraq.
Lets face it, the only real problem we could have in the foreseeable future is China invading Taiwan.
Even if North Korea invades South Korea, they can take care of themselves until we get there.
So why don’t we swing a couple carrier groups over to the West coast?
Lets just hope Obama’s military use does not descend into “pinprick” rocket assaults that do nothing while our embassies and the Pentagon go up in flames….
To the author, Mr. John Noonan:
You wrote: “I’d rather spend 5%-6% of our GDP on ensuring we never have to suffer through another WWI or WWII.”
Are you already tired and afraid of “suffering”? Then stop joining World Wars over every goddamned single sunken ship (like the “R.M.S. Lusitania” or a few obsolete battleships in Pearl Harbour, that were all going to be scrapped 4 years later anyway) and you can even do away entirely with the U.S. American defense budget. Or do you fear an invasion from Canada or Mexico?
But keep meddling in every single country’s internal affairs, and one day the reconstruction of the U.S.A. (if it still makes sense then) will be a thousand times more expensive than all the previous military expenditures together.
On second thought: Keep joining all World Wars!
Whether or not it was reasonable to measure strength by spending in the ’80s, it makes no sense now there is no single enemy trying to match the USA weapon system for weapon system. Better to focus on growing the GDP than to spend a larger fraction of GDP. Also better to develop alternative energy sources to make the whole world less dependent on the oil that funds the Pasdaran in Iran, the jihad sympathizers in S. Arabia, H. Chavez in Venezuela, etc.
Many times a cut of buget inspire people to spend their money more wisely and effectively, something that the armed forces really, really need, specially the Navy and Air Force.
Hey Robert Clough – did you not proof read your own post. First you correctly say “promote the general welfare” and then you change it to “provide for the general welfare”
HUGE difference between promote and provide. And like most people who claim that the Constitution allows things like “cap and trade” and socialized healthcare are completely ignorant as to the intent of the framers.
Total – the point of “provide for the common defense” is not where it is in the preamble but that it is “specific” for the federal government. And if you can’t defend the nation nothing else really matters.
Bob 1317 – are you being sarcastic or serious because now we know the 90′s was when al Qaeda declared war on us with little or no response and that led directly to 9/11. Great times if you worked at American embassies in Africa or were on the USS Cole that fateful day or at work in the WTC in 1993.
John Noonan keep up the accurate reporting about defense expenditures.
And I will state as I have many times – IT IS ENTITLEMENT SPENDINZG STUPID, that is bankrupting us.
The green initiatives are actually a common defense strategy. They are to enhance domestic economic stability by significantly reducing high volume dependence on foreign resources like imported fossil fuels. The totals on the dollar amounts we pay for total US consumption per year right now are *huge*, and works against our efforts to reduce the national debt; while our consumption seems to be stepping back, prices have been much higher during the last couple of years.
We need a strong, smart military. We need to be able to afford a strong, smart military. We can’t be spending all our money on gasoline.
Congress should sign into law a bill that requires a minimum annual defense budget that is at least 5% of the national GDP.
The dumbest part of this dumb graph is conflating defense spending with 9/11. Just ignore all the history- supporting the muj in Astan vs the Soviets, for example. No no, it was defense spending, because no one would have ever tried to fly civilian airliners into buildings if we’d been spending 5.5%… ?!?! This is garbage.
As to this:
“I’d rather spend 5%-6% of our GDP on ensuring we never have to suffer through another WWI or WWII. ”
Before both WWI and WWII, there were nations that were _outspending_ the United States on their militaries. Right now, we don’t even have people spending close to half of what we do.
Posted by: Total at June 26, 2009 04:21 PM
————————-
If im reading right didnt you just make his and my point………before ww2 the us was out spent on defense by others and so we payed for our lack of defense in lives and material.
WTF would you do if 5 to 10 years down the road China or russia or india or who knows suddenly 5% to 8% of there GDP on “defense”. After all most of Imperial Japans reasons for expansion and war were resources.
————————————————-
Bomb, your a idiot who obviously is either a simple forum troll or a jacka$$ who doesnt understand his fellow human beings so realy shhhhh….btw where you you live so i can make sure NEVER to go there.
——————————————-
Makes sense, considering we are fighting and borrowing(still won’t raise war taxes)for two wars.
Posted by: Drake1 at June 26, 2009 04:23 PM
————————
no but well get our taxes raised for lazy a’holes to collect welfare and to support economic suicide in the name of “Global Warming” aka the place all the supporting poloticians have put there money(al gore, squicker pelosi, barack obama etc.
————————————————–
Posted by: Mike Bentley at June 26, 2009 06:05 PM
We should have been invested in nucleur energy on a large domestic scale sence the 70s but the greenies freaked out and made nukes into the buggyman. Also in solar energy and hydro and thermal more. (Theres a new company that uses sterling engines for power wonderful little things)
Also we should boost our domestic production of oil. (which was on the way to furition before The O man got in but to apease the environmental crowd-hope thats the reason anyways cant see any other one-he stopped the new wells being drilled out west and in alaska.)
I DO NOT believe in “man made global warming” Do i believe that the environment is changing? Of course it always has been naturaly.
I care about the environment but dont believe we should neuter ourselves in a mad rush because its getting hotter in places(yes ive extensivly read up on the subject it still seems more a politcal thing than acsual science.)
Environmentalist, liberals, eco fanatics have been saying for years that humans are out of ballance (what ballance? What do you think viruses and diseases are there nature trying to KILL US) How about a ballance in other things.
The USA outspends all countries combined concerning defense. The Pentagon is notoriously wasteful, and the whole procurement process is bloated and tainted and should be streamlined and more efficient with tax dollars. Statements that cutting defense spending will weaken the US or indicates a lack of patriotism are false arguments that one hears all the time.
Ike was right–beware the military-industrial complex.
The green initiatives are actually a common defense strategy. They are to enhance domestic economic stability by significantly reducing high volume dependence on foreign resources like imported fossil fuels. The totals on the dollar amounts we pay for total US consumption per year right now are *huge*, and works against our efforts to reduce the national debt; while our consumption seems to be stepping back, prices have been much higher during the last couple of years.
We need a strong, smart military. We need to be able to afford a strong, smart military. We can’t be spending all our money on gasoline.
Posted by: Mike Bentley at June 26, 2009 06:05 PM
.
.
.
.
so then youre agreeing with me that we should be drilling our own oil here at home?
Discussions like this always inevitably devolve into repetitious social versus military spending arguments.
“The Treasury’s debt auction room, where the U.S. government sells securities backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States.” On this day, the government is auctioning $67 billion of Treasury securities. The money borrowed will be used to fund services and programs that the government cannot pay for through tax revenues alone.”
FRONTLINE: Ten Trillion and Counting
I guarantee you both the Democrats, Republicans won’t deal with this problem until voters sober up. I’m done…this whole discussion is pointless.
National Review nailed it: “Barack Obama is the herald of the September 10 Democrats.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mzc5MGEwNWU4ZWRlZmI4YTkyM2MzNTNhYjI4MThiZjk=
This argument is based on the false premise that more spending = better defense.
Right now, the national debt is arguably a greater threat to the safety and security of Americans than Al Qaeda.
Good, um… lively, discussion as always. Just jumping into briefly respond to Bryon — whose comments I generally enjoy:
I’d be loathe to call this propaganda, the numbers check out.
THAAD, one of the land based missile intercept systems, has performed well in tests. The GMI has yet to be full tested. The other systems mentioned have been canceled sans the F-22, some justified (Crusader, FCS, Comanche), others not so much (Osprey).
The Reagan era buildup had nothing to do with terrorism or non-state actors.
Heritage does receive funds from contractors like Lockeed and Boeing, but -according to Source Watch- donations from corporate sponsors account for less than 4% of their total budget.
Past that, the post got a little strange… so I’ll steer clear. Actually, I’m usually suspicious of folks who throw around the term “propaganda,” so I’m reverting back to the observer role.
Cheers, proceed.
Money doesn’t equal a good military. Nobody in the GDP=strong military camp has spelled out how or why a specific percent of GDP is needed. We’ve taken a pounding by nations and non-state actors who spend an infinitesimal fraction of what we do on military force.
State clearly what the nation’s strategic objectives are that require military force. What personnel, training, and equipment (in that order) are needed to achieve those objectives? What are your wants/nice to haves? What financial resources are required to acquire those needs? If you can sit down with a pen, paper, and calculator and prove that it really takes 5%, then fine, we can debate that. Until then, you’re pulling numbers out of your rear.
“Money doesn’t equal a good military”
Sure to hell doesn’t hurt. I remember scraping through the tough times of both Carter AND Clinton. We preferred when we had money to train with.
There is more there than simply common defense. Providing for the general welfare covers health care, green initiatives, corporate bailouts, roads, education, and a host of other matters.
Um, I believe the preamble of the Constitution states “promote the general welfare” not provide for it.
@Christian Lowe:
Noah built this blog in no time with excellent content.
You turned it into a continuous intellectual low level flight with your disastrous choice of contributors and apparently no quality control.
This piece of propaganda that’s has more faulty assumptions and assertions than words is just another example.
John Noonan is just one example of a terrible writer, just like about a year the nonsense writer from Strategypage.
Quantity is no replacement for quality in this case.
Think about your contributors, please.
Feel free to delete this comment – I would understand it as this is your place.
I might be more inclined to believe this was a big deal if it wasn’t the Heritage Foundation’s baby. Asking *anyone* in that crew whether it might not be so bad to spend less- but more wisely- on defense is like asking gulls if the landfill ought to be closed (or even asking some of the more rabid posters to stop using the word ‘traitor’ to describe the current CinC!) Let’s say spending did go up to 5.3%; they’d send out another report saying that 6% is the least we can go, and from then they’d want 10 or 20% “just to be sure.” They might mean well, but the constant cheerleading for gold-plated doodads and budgets to match isn’t helping. When 3% of a giant GNP can’t get a ship or a plane built on time, simply pouring more money into the problem won’t help. The only real dip in that chart is the deep trough the system has become!
Yep, keep in mind the graph includes 30 years of a Cold War with a real superpower arms race and a real threat of doomsday proportions; not just a bunch of hateful tards with almost no resources.
It also includes the insane spending of the Vietnam War and the huge spending of the Iraq war (do these think tank guys want perpetual war or why do they want to keep war spending levels?).
They begin (why?) at 1960 – apparently willfully keeping Ike’s time out.
They chose %GNP – a useless variable.
There’s absolutely no reason why you need to spend more for national defence just because you’re richer than last year, or less if you’re in a recession. It’s simply a pointless variable.
A look at international military budgets in purchasing power parities (that takes into account that there are man allies as well) would be much more useful.
Guess what? Those graphs tell a whole different story (of insane spending).
It’s very daring to draw a graph for military expenses in %ofGNP for the next years without the slightest chance of actually predicting the development of the GNP.
Oh, and 2019 – that would be Obamas third term, right? Who’s gullible enough that the 2019 DoD budget could be usefully “projected” today? Or that it is actually somehow determined by 2009 budget decisions?
So far, the only thing Obama/Gates did to the DoD budget was a nominal INCREASE.
Oh, and let’s not forget that military spending is much more than just the DoD budget (and a small part of the DoD budget are no military expenditures).
The actual military spending is most likely well above 5% GNP – some calculations tend more to 6.x than 4.y%.
This is expecially true as the GNP is declining. 4.8%ofGNP quickly become 5.05%ofGNP if the economy shrinks by 5%, for example.
I Liked military.com’s websites a great deal more when they didn’t lay out the red carpet for Heritage Foundation hit jobs and hysteria-mongering.
*I admit that I’m giving Obama the benefit of the doubt because I like him, and because I know he appointed people like Chrystal, who I also like, and Gates is ok by me… He hasn’t really ruined anything yet.
PLA General Advises Building Bases in the South China Sea
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35169&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=25&cHash=2279feeeb1
USA is spending half of the word`s military expenditure. Half of the other half is spend by US allies like other NATO members, Japan, South Korea, Australia etc. Half of the remaining quotre is spend by neutral countries like Brasil, India, Sweden, South Africa etc. Only the remainig one eighth is spend by countries that are samehow unfriendly to the USA like China, Russia, Iran etc.
If that is not enough to make the USA feel save, the only way out is massive therapy.
Sven,
Here’s a link that goes into a bit more detail:
http://author.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2286.cfm
No need to delete your comment. You’re free to tell me I suck however often you’d like. Cheers, John
“&”( &*$*
Good!!!!!!!!!!! Needs to cut a lot more. The more he cuts, the safer we get, figure that one out.
a well supplied army is a happy army. that’s obvious to anyone who has served. most of the negative comments on this thread clearly come from people who have never worn the uniform. never trained. never fought.
we called the reagan years the “good old days” because when we needed ammo for field exercises we always had it. when we wanted to deploy the unit to germany to train, the answer was always yes. when we wanted to send guys to professional courses to make them better soldiers, there was always money available to do it and spots available on the roster.
clinton years we had to learn to make do. and now we’re stuck in this procurement development hell because assholes like you people felt that underfunding the force was A-ok for 8 years of clinton and a few more under bush.
if you have a problem with heritage foundation it’s because you’re an ideologue and your own selfish agenda comes before what’s best for the military. you have an agenda to push and then accuse john noonan of pushing one. what hypocrisy.
Good!!!!!!!!!!! Needs to cut a lot more. The more he cuts, the safer we get, figure that one out.
Posted by: Bambooviper at June 27, 2009 11:58 AM
your post have devolved into insanity…always knew this day would come
Brit,
I have to sayi have looked at global warming from both sides……….i used to be a Believer”
Then i accualy stopped being sheeple and realized there evidence” is none existant and sometimes even contradicts itself. Most of the big name enviro poloticians are either socalist, live in countries already engulfed by the greenie gods, or are basicaly jsut looking to increase there power and wealth. Look at where algore put his money before he released and inconvienent truth.
Go ahead and destroy your own economies with that crap but until i am shown iron proff of (Man made) global warming i will say no.
To do otherwise is to inslave my children to servitude for my own urge to fit in and to leave my thinking to others.
People that are not informed in life, don’t worry about my posts, they are far over your head, I’m just fishing to see who is smart and who in not.
Here is one to chew on a while and take note at the V that have been taken off? Huuumm, just hunnmmm. http://911truthpedia.org/wiki/False_flag
John Noonan, I can tell you are a guy that cares, but that will do no good if you don’t put real facts with it. You want to be safe, it is simple really. Do you think when I was building buildings my mind was on destroying someone elses creation? Do you think the young parents of a new born is thinking how to kill other races new borns? Do you think the ones that are in the rice paddies planting rice are thinking how to destroy our crops so we will starve. Do you think that the hard worker in life that works his butt off till he dies hoping that some day, some one in his gene pool can reach the American dream, and before he dies the rug is pulled out from under him. Well, I’m glad to see that the tax dollars I put out a long time ago went for a study that really worked. MIND CONTROL! Operation Northwoods, a plan of our CI A to attack our own citicens for a false flag and you still haven’t figured out the real thret? Really? I might have lost it but you still ain’t got it.
Byron Skinner–Thank you for being here, I was lonly for a while, I thought maybe I was the only one that knew what DDs are. hehe Carry On! I will liston.
This is starting to sound like a smart military now, we will be fooled NO MORE! Truth will set us free.
I was in Germany throughout the 80s and yeah my pay as an E4 and E5 was good with Rea Rea in office but that was it.
We were a front line unit and our commanders were always broke and frustrated by the lack of funds. Soldiers in other units told of similar situations, so life wasn’t exactly a boll of cherries back then, Rea Rea was really a dumb a## clown in disguise so good riddance to him and his Hollywood ways.
Old Soldier
Valcan–I will not lower myself to a battle of wits with an unarmed opponet! Go play, this is for adults. You have to be some school kid, that is all I can figure.
Valcan–I will not lower myself to a battle of wits with an unarmed opponet! Go play, this is for adults. You have to be some school kid, that is all I can figure.
Posted by: Bambooviper at June 27, 2009 06:18 PM
Dude……..no offense but you cant even spell opponent.
Valcan- Your right sonny, I can’t spell very well, but I have wiped a many of them that could, you get old enough, I will show you what I mean. Now go let Mommy tuck you in and tell you a bed time story with no miss spelled words, and I will see you in the morning. nitie nite little guy and sweet dreams, have mom turn the night lite on OK.
Why is the previous average equated with some magical number which is inherently the ‘right’ amount to spend? The cold war is over. The reduction was entirely justified. A new threat has emerged. It is not clear that cubic dollars will in any way help defeat it. Not by US defense spending anyway.
Do the figures in the graph for the last few yrs include Iraq & Afganistan directly? Even indirectly there must be a large componant of spending included for those wars. If the US does manage to disengage from Iraq that would surely affect the numbers. However I happen to think the enormous replacement and maintenance legacy of the past few years would more than counteract that, so never mind.
And finally the biggest question about ‘reduced’ spending. Even with the assumption of the writer & source, does the graph represent a real dollar reduction in spending? That’s a 10yr projection which also has an inherent componant of economic growth. It is entirely possibly to increase or maintain real inflation adjusted spending while reducing the % of spending in gdp. I haven’t bothered to look in detail but it;s an important point for anyone throwing mud in either direction.
Bunch of dumbass liberals. Screwing over our military to fund their stupid pipedreams while conflicts are still raging, and new ones are on the horizon. Are these morons incapable of realizing airframes, guns, and everything starts to wear out after a few decades?
The Heritage Foundation is far more reliable than the crap the left-wing loons would feed you.
Thinks need to be modernized, things need to be replaced, and new technologies need to be introduced.
I’d rather spend 5%-6% of our GDP on ensuring we never have to suffer through another WWI or WWII.—
seriously, do you have any idea what are you talking about? or are you just stoped to smoke the shit and hit the number with you MC-fat fingers?
just in case but 5%-6% of GPD is the half of all taxes payed in the USA for this year.
Did not this action also take place in the mid 90′s with Clinton? His whole basis was also Health care and jobs? What happened to that idea, oh yeah, “Monica” was more important than all of America!! Whoever thought that President Obama would strengthen the military was fooled. Oh well, what can we do? Let it roll, and hope it does not go beyond our support for our troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Just wait till the military raises are short lived too.
The narrow sighted still leave out the rest of that phrase. You quote freely “provide for the common defence…” which is true. There is also what comes after that you self-indulgently leave out. “Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. To ourselves and our posterity.” Which does mean health care, and does mean “green initiatives”. It is a tricky balancing act that some of you are too ignorant to think about because you conveniently forget that part of the Preamble because it does not suit your needs. Secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity means keeping and safeguarding our freedoms not only for ourselves but our future generations as well. We are to make this land better than the way we found it.
Some seem to forget that part. Try reading the WHOLE thing instead of just the parts that interest the short term.
The number alone are without meaning.
I will tell you why:
US: almost 700 billion
Red China: 70 billion(official)
At first look it seems that the US is well ahead of the PRC right? WRONG!
Keep in mind that cost for people is half the US budget and then look at the number of troops both countries have:
US: around 1,5 million activ
China: 2,25 million activ
How can China do that? Easy, in China soldiers cost nothing. The US is a highpricecountry where you have to pay the soldiers much more so they can live and even more cause of the free market.
And this is true for everything else. Cost of making weapons,
cause those chinese workers, even the engieers and scientists get nothing compare to their US counterparts.
I’m confused. After all the hatred for Bush pushed by DefenseTech and Noah, you’d think they be elated with Obama.
I mean, how mnany tanks do you *really* need to sing Kumbaya?
Well Well Well
Good Morning Folks,
I think that the point John Nooan is make regarding defense spending as a percentage of GDP or even perhaps the more accurate GNP is really irrelevant. With the current wars demanding more personal and fast emerging battlefield technology the U.S. will be seeing trillion dollar plus defense budgets shortly.
My concern is not the money, it must be spent if the U.S. is to be a world power, but that it is spent wisely and that means for the war(s) we are currently fighting and not on some “what if”, game being played by Admirals and Generals at weekend retreats, or fixed war games paid for by think tanks and defense contractors who have a vested interest in the outcomes.
The weapon systems being questioned are just such systems, over priced, over sized and would have little if any value in resolving and WINNING the three current hot wars we are fighting, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
It must be said and it hasn’t yet, is if the U.S. doesn’t win these wars you can forget about planning for the next one. It time for the adults to take over in the DoD and understand this, it is life or death. If this opinion if liberal or conservative I don’t know and if the U.S. can’t win these wars I guess I won’t make any difference anyway.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
One thing I love about this country is reading a pro-military (conservative) blog like this and seeing a fair amount of agreeing comments concerning the (relatively) low level of military spending.
After three tours (just since 9/11), I have yet to see any increase of funding come in my direction. We are STILL flying 40 year old HC-130′s, battered HH-60′s, and were refueled by 1950′s era KC-135s. This is nothing less than atrocious and PROVES that the DoD CANNOT be counted on the spend thier money wisely.
If we cut these rediculously expensive and ineffective programs and just get back to refueling, rearming, and resupplying the forces we have than we could get by with a smaller budget. We’ve been doing more with less for so long I can’t remember when we didn’t have too (i.e. The Cold War).
Here is a short list of things that need to be produced or developed. Like it or not we can’t keep the same old things working forever, and work on future projects has to start somewhere.
-F-15 replacement (need more F-22s)
-F-16 replacement (F-35 is the current plan)
-AV-8B replacement
-KC-135 replacement
-AAVP-7A1 replacement (EFV is current plan)
-Amphibious warfare ships for the USMC
-HMMWV replacement (JLTV and M-ATV)
-M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, M109A6 PIM maintenance/upgrades (short term)
-New family of armored ground vehicles to replace the above (long term)
-Upgrades to Stryker family for our “light” mechanized units now that FCS Manned Ground Vehicles are canceled.
-A small, frigate/corvette sized ship to fill out the Navy’s numbers and replace the FFG-7s (should have been LCS)
-Eventual replacements for the M4, M16, M249 in both short and long term.
Plus the work on these projects has to start somewhere. If not in these (hopefully only four) Obama years, the administration after his needs to ensure work on these gets started.
F/A-XX (Super Hornet replacement)
Next Generation Bomber
New generation of UAVs (like the X-47B)
CVN(X)
CG(X)
Upgraded DDG-51s or DDG-1000s.
Plus there are other things that would certainly be nice to have.
Ran across a reminder today that more defense spending is not always good defense spending, ESPECIALLY in the case of the Cold War. Remember the $9,600 allen wrenches and the $7,600 coffee pots in the ’80′s?
http://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/dod-procurement-practice-then-and-now-a-public-versus-private-sector-comparison-part-1/
I’m not sure if we can afford to cut defense spending quite as much as the Heritage Foundation thinks we will, but we don’t need a 1982 Pentagon budget to be safe.
Mang, thanks for bringing up that article.
A better link for your article is the original (http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/99arq/bessel.pdf) where the link you cited lifted the material directly or indirectly. I agree it is instructive.
Others should note:
1. The info and article is a decade old
2. The info and article/paper are the product of the DoD, so those who might scream ‘wastels’ should acknowledge the effort as a self-policing one.
3. Dr Besselman et al scrupulously note that the topic is about commodities purchases and NOT major weapon systems.
4. One of the best points made in the paper is that even with Six Sigma quality acquisition , given the number of acquisition actions undertaken each year, there could be a handful of disasters (I note here how easily Wankers can use exceptions to falsely claim as evidence of systematic problems)
Highly recommend anything I’ve read by Besselman on the subject.
@Walt… Come on, if you were on some UK Ministry of Defense forum and someone told you “NO FOREIGNERS,” you’d laugh them off. It’s a free internet.
@flying fart… relax, man
Big wars are over. Noonan’s discounting of nuclear weapons doesn’t make that the slightest bit less true. It’s been true for sixty years, so Noonan really shoulda noticed by now. A President and former general of Noonan’s own party said much the same thing, chopping the military’s size over half a century ago, as well (the Republican whose budget Noonan ignored). It’s not going to change anytime in the next sixty years, either, so shouldn’t we be spending smaller and better-targeted amounts for smaller wars.
More money for more people and more training and hospitals and lotsa’n'lotsa V22s – it’s all good, I say. Lotsa F-22′s, though – why?
Here’s a piece from the American Center for Progress on what missile defense the 2010 defense budget will actually cover, which I found informative. Byron Skinner touched on THAAD and some of the other content already. AEGIS sea-based defense gets a 62% budget increase.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/credible_missile_defenses.html
The Soviet Union never lost WW3, because it went bankrupt before it could start. Last push was given by Reagan (thanks Ronnie!)and some mujaheddin somewhere. The lesson learned is that you can’t stay a superpower if you don’t have the money. I don’t know if the US government is making the right decisions, but if you can be declared bankrupt by your biggest opponent (China) and you are also fighting some mujaheddin somewhere it’s wise to learn from the Russians. It’s the economy stupid!
PS: but I am Dutch and we Europeans are communist anyway.
I’ve got nothing more to say than to direct you here:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/25/misinformation-from-heritage/
Basing government spending on percentage of GDP is logically fallacious, and I thought you were smarter than that.
Yes, the Constitution does indeed invoke a mandate, in the Preamble, to “provide for the common defence” but let’s review the entire paragraph, shall we?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Defence (sic) is only one out of six such mandates and not even the first.
Of course, one could ask whether an apparently ever-expanding empire really does promote a common defense or simply put us on an eternal war footing, but I’ll leave that to others to debate, as will I leave the current excesses and omissions by our Federal Government and its surrogates.
I simply point out that “defense”, however you define it (or spell it), is not the only function of government. I suspect that puts me in the minority in this forum but so be it.
The Soviet Union never lost WW3, because it went bankrupt before it could start. Last push was given by Reagan (thanks Ronnie!)and some mujaheddin somewhere. ———-
WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. dude you have to take history lessons.
Come on!!! we can get to 100 easy! with people like fart and please who make no sence!!!!!!!!!
YES WE CAN!!
roflmao
Well now let
Good Morning Folks,
So much and so little time.
To bambooviper: I haven’t a clue of what you are talking about, you might try introducing a supported point of view some time instead of attacking the person making the statement. Your typical response to anyone here seldom rises above the macho talk of a Middle School play yard. Also if you want to be take seriously use your own name and don’t hide behind childish words, that is of course if you are older then 13.
Wes: How do we differ. All of the “old” systems that you have mentioned a couple over 50 years old have been constantly overhauled and modernized and in fact perform at the levels of the newer systems. The nearly 60 year old M-109 is in it A5 or is it A6 upgrade and is technologically ahead of Crusader, the OH-58 is the 50 year old Bell Ranger and is still able to fill the Army’s Scout requirements, Comanche was neat and I like it but it didn’t give the Army anything it wanted that it didn’t already have in the OH-58, the Stryker is a failed system, I could go on, but I don’t see where we disagree?
eric: Reagan didn’t discover out spending the Soviets would bring about their down fall, you would have to go back to Truman and George C. Marshall. I have yet to find that at anytime during the cold war the Soviets had and advantage militarily over the United States and would like any to show me where I’m in error. The fact is that the Soviets were a hallow threat that was exploited by both our own military and a defense industry that saw the golden egg. So who is going to take up my challenge?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Our Defense Capability grows weaker in corrolation to the dollar! As we continue to spend wildly and refuse to bring any kind of restraint to existing domestic programs….we are proving that we can outspend our means! As we continue to float increasingly worthless bonds to some of our friends (? China, Saudi, etc.)we have deluted our financial independence, in the name of maintaining the appearance of strength.
Inconjunction with the spend-more Congress we have nealry wiped out our industrial capacity….as an example we had great difficulty producing the basic load of rifle ammo at the start of this last dust-up. We have regulated, taxed, lawyered our industry into oblivion and have weakened our industrial capacity along with a rapidly declining middle class.
Now couple all of this with a leftist, envirowacko Congress and White House….and we have a real problem.
I guess some people missed the rest of it:
“…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
Just because you’re not making money out of it doesn’t mean it isn’t important. If the author insists on throwing these gauntlets, I’ll have to respond. Not that he cares about my Constitution, apparently.
dave, sounds like you are gonna have as miserable a time over the next 8 years as I did during the last 8 :/
Lighten up guys, there is great discussion going on here apart from the ad-hominem attacks!
“The US defense budget is easily affordable and should be increased.”???
How is it possible to think so as long as federal budget and trade balance have a deficit?
You can think away some ‘entitlement’ expenses, but that’s no ceteris paribus change. Half of the ‘entitlements’ flows back as taxes and there are many other effects (that’s their purpose).
So you cannot really cut the deficit by 1 $ by cutting ‘entitlements’ by 1 $. It’s more like 30-40 cents and 1$. Plus you get some social troubles.
In the end it looks as if the defence budget is NOT affordable (especially if you think about setting aside reserves for the $ 30 trillion you mentioned).
To the poster “flying fart proudly joned”:
The Truth is: What doomed Communism in the Eastern countries (since the very beginning) was lack of oil and lack of wheat, never lack of weapons or even of soldiers. Militarily, the Soviets could have had (or at least destroyed) all of Europe beyond the Oder-Nei?e-Line whenever they wanted, driving right over the faces of the U.S. American First Army’s V Corps, and there was nothing you could have done to stop them.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner:
You wrote: “I have yet to find that at anytime during the cold war the Soviets had and advantage militarily over the United States and would like any to show me where I’m in error.”
AAARGHH … ??! Which weapons did the Soviet Union have in smaller numbers than the U.S.A., except maybe aircraft carriers and heavy bombers?
Excuse me, Sir, but you officially reached the age limit for pos(t)ing in this forum. You have to leave.
Good Morning Folks,
To FFB other the spitting old generalizations you have said nothing. The fact that American forces chose not to trash a country when we invade is testimony to our values. The old Soviets with their Victories in Afghanistan and Chechnya show what they leave behind.
As far as the numbers of troops that you stated recent disclosures show that the “Regular Soviet Army” was somewhat smaller the American Army. With the majority of troops stationed on the Chinese border, where they still are and in the Eastern European countries where after Hungary 1956 the Soviet became obsessed that an uprising would succeed. The majority of their troop count were two year conscripts and reservist who had no formal military training. The U.S. never counted our NG in out troop counts.
On tanks, depot record show that from the late 1960′s on the Soviets had about 3800 T64B and higher number hauls ready for service. Not the 10-20,000 that the US DoD claimed they had. Their daily red line ran about 30-40%. The only meeting of U.S. crewed M-60′s, crewed by USMC, and Soviet T-72 was in Kuwait and nearly all the T-72′s were destroyed in Tank on Tank but none of the M-60′s.
As for combat the Soviet Army never ventured out side of it’s own borders when attacking a country. The U.S. military was and still is a world wide force.
The USN is a true “Blue Water Navy” the Soviet fleets were never more then costal defense forces. The Soviet submarine fleet was never and still isn’t al all Nuclear force with boats at sea 24/7/365.
The Soviets never had a nuclear first strike ability and still don’t today. The U.S. form the end of WW II had first strike with bombers based in Norway, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Japan as well as in Alaska. Soviet missiles never and still don’t have the alert status that the U.S. has.
Since you are so critical of the U.S. military I assume you to be a career member of the U.S. armed forces. So as well as using you own name please identify witch branch and war you served in, I’m sure many of us would be interested.
On Tanks which during the cold war were lead to believe the Soviets had 10-20K ready to go, well actual depot counts of available Soviet durning most of the cold was about 3800 and that number declined during the 1990′s. All Soviet and now Russian tanks, including the T-90, are variants of the 1960′s era T-64 haul, guns, turrets and all still have manual fire control systems.
As for the age issue, if you level of intellect is typical of what the next generation, the country is really in trouble.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
A country has to be an economic superpower before a country is a military superpower.
Good Morning FFB,
I see that you have assembled all the old cold war propaganda numbers. I’m not even go to bother to amuse myself with disputing them.
Again how about a name, only faceless cowards and conservatives hid behind silly little made up names, be a man, if you are you could be a woman I guess but most of them seem to be more rational then you seem to be. I guess through you latest extensive efforts I have to ask who is paying you. Since I got you so excited somebody feels threatened out there.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Sven Ortmann said (in reply to my post) – In the end it looks as if the defence budget is NOT affordable (especially if you think about setting aside reserves for the $ 30 trillion you mentioned).
That’s quite the logical fallacy. It is like the drug addict saying I can’t afford food because of the cost of cocaine. In fact your whole argument based on economic theory is wrong. If as you say entitlement spending gets paid back through taxes why not cut entitlements by the same percentage and not tax them? Unfortunately a blog site does not give me the forum to completely refute the entirety of your argument, so let’s agree to disagree.
@Bobbymike:
Did you attempt to think that through?
Good Afternoon Mr. Ortman,
I usually don’t give out that type of information but you want to get in the business and I’m only in it for fun I will make an exception. If your starting cold I suggest you go over to Osprey Publishing and check out their titles, but don’t buy any from Osprey, go over to amazon, put in the title and check out the USED books, big savings but don’t forget to add $3.99 shipping per title. Amazon will show show you other title on what they think is the same topic,often from non U.S. publishers repeat step one.
The Osprey books are thin, but kinda dense, so you can go outside the given subject matter quickly. For example one on a title that dealt with a specific tank, it lead me to information about production and vehicle performance, then go over to google, get a cup of coffee, and start digging.
On cold war look for information that is Russian or British first, be careful of some of the Russian sites, they can have critters attached to them. Go deep into the information there are gems of information past the 250,000 entry mark.
The amount of information might overwhelm you, but be patient, just as any grad student would do check one piece against another piece, look for minor differences, like a name or date that is not the same then go back and google the event and the names.
It take a while to learn but it’s a productive way to get a lot of information. As for myself I don’t save but make notes, you will attract attention and there is no use saving information that can be corrupted in your computer. Never the less, I have in the ten years or so, I’ve been doing this, have had a computer last a year, every one has had it hard disc blown out, so buy the cheapest ones you can.
Good Luck Sven and keep us informed.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
LOL
at all the U.S. American posters here! A dime a dozen of them!
First I’ve heard countless patriots (I forgot their names) swearing that the U.S.A. exited Korea and Nam “victoriously”. Then we’ve had good Sergeant Mac repeating loud and clear that (attention: ) the Japanese were beaten numb by the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbour. Reading his posts caused me serious focusing problems, and I’m a ruthless troll!
And now we have silly old Mr. Byron Skinner saying this mad phrase here: “The Soviets never had a nuclear first strike ability and still don’t today”… Apparently, their unparalleled, 70 years long efforts to doom the World with multiple overkills yielded “simply no results”.
Next, someone will make the audacious claim that the U.S.A. can defeat France militarily… (Back in World War Two, the U.S.A. didn’t even DARE to invade Europe without the heroic R
So Sven Ortmann according to freefaillingbomb you’re European? If so now I understand why you have no understanding of the Constitution or Declaration or have not read the Federalist Papers or other writings of the Founders.
You would not be able to post on a blog without the freedom the US provided. So to quote Colonel Nathan R Jessup “Just say thank you and be on your way”.
@Bobbymike:
Ad hominem, that’s all you got?
The U.S. wouldn’t even exist without Europe. It would instead still be settled by stone age tribes.
Come on, it’s not my fault that your fiscal idea was a harakiri of logic.
Good Morning FFB,
What am I going to do with you. Clearly you don’t understand what first strike capability is, it has nothing to do with accuracy. The Soviets never had and still don’t have a first strike capability. Two reasons their Command and Control system and the in ability to pre fuel a missile and then let it sit.
In recent years both Topal (M) and Bulava missiles has failed every test launch. While just last week the U.S. test fired a Minuteman III down the Pacific Test range and the 3 dummy warheads hit their targets at 2400 miles.
Currently the Russian have 8 Delta IV SSBN’s that have been sitting at the docks for at least 10 years, unarmed because currently the Russian have no missile for them or for that matter crews.
The Russian currently under treaty are allowed 39 missile cylos, but none contain a missile. The Russian currently have 6 mobile launchers for whenever the Topal M become available.
Satellite observation. The U.S. had Space Based Imaging up and operating by 1961, the Soviets would not have this capacity till the end of the 1960′s. In the 1980′s the US. had real time satellite imaging and SAR , the Soviets never did fully achieve this.
Lets see now I’m european, the fact that I’ve yet to visit Europe doesn’t matter, I guess. As for yourself we still don’t know a name, the brach of military service you served in, or who is paying you to post, I would suggest by you lack of mastery of the language and knowledge of the subject matter they are not getting their monies worth.
If it weren’t for profanity, personal attacks and lack of knowledge of the subject matter you wouldn’t have anything to say at all. But I’m getting to you and that amuses me, but only so far.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Good Morning Folks,
It appears that the Russian are readers of defense tech, a little while ago a Russian New Agency posted that the Russian Army will reduce it current inventory of 22,000 tanks to 2,000, all of which be T-90′s converted for T-72′s. the larger haul T-64/T-80 tanks will be scrapped. The T-95, “Abrams killer”, is expected to be in testing by the end of 2009 and in production in 3-4 years, good luck, it also will be a constructed on the smaller T-72 haul but will have a welded turret, laser rangefinder, laser defensive system, and perhaps a new main gun, a auto loading 130mm Smooth Bore ?, the power plant is expected to remain diesel, we will just have to wait and see I guess.
The current status of tanks in the Russian Federation Army are 6,000 serviceable, about 1,000 to 1,500 in active units.
China is estimated to have a total of 4-5,000 total mostly old Soviet T-54′s and T-55′s with about 2,000 Chinese manufactured Type 90′s.
NATO less the United States is estimated to have about 6,000 tanks. The U.S. claims to have 7,500 M1A1′s in units and in strategic storage and an unknown number of M-60′s in reserve.
Again FFB lays a DUD.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner:
In very, very general terms: BEFORE you even start to write or even to think anything: Are you quite sure that you manage to distinguish clearly between the extinct Soviet Union (1917 – 1991) and extant Russia (1991 – now)?
Everybody: Check out once Mr. Byron Skinner’s chrono”logical” sequence of phrases, for example merely in his last answer to me (and this time totally irrespective of their remaining contents) :
Phrase nr. 3: “The SOVIETS never had and still don’t have a first strike capability.”
Phrase nr. 5: “In RECENT YEARS both Topal (M) and Bulava missiles has failed every test launch.”
Phrases nr. 8 and 9: “The Russian CURRENTLY under treaty are allowed 39 missile cylos, but none contain a missile. The Russian CURRENTLY have 6 mobile launchers for whenever the Topal M become available.”
Phrases nr. 11 and 12: “The U.S. had Space Based Imaging up and operating by 1961, the SOVIETS would not have this capacity till the end of the 1960′s. In the 1980′s the US. had real time satellite imaging and SAR , the SOVIETS never did fully achieve this.”
These are HALF-CENTURY LEAPS which you constantly make! ARE YOU EVEN MINIMALLY AWARE of the real differences between the former Soviet Union and modern Russia??! Maybe you got stuck in time?
Regarding my lousy English skills: After you learned any other language besides your mother tongue English, we talk again. In your second language. (I speak only five, but that’s because I’m a dumb Euro…)
By the way: Your English spelling sucks (missile “cylos”?), just like your grammar, your capitalization, your punctuation and your syntax, everything! Back in school I would NEVER have been allowed to write as bad as most U.S. Americans here, although my English teacher was a very tolerant U.S. American herself.
P.S.: But thanks again for your daily supply of fresh, amusing, unsurmountable nonsense: “…You don’t understand what first strike capability is, it has nothing to do with (a missile’s) accuracy.”
True, I.C.B.M.s only need relatively crude guidance systems. That’s jolly old Byron Skinner, unabridged!
P.P.S.: You’ve got cancer.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
To Mr. Sven Ortmann:
Can you forgive me for exposing our TERRIBLE , TERRIBLE secret, the fact that we’re N-O-T pure U.S. Americans, although we sometimes gather here incognito to post, and even enjoy our little desecrations of this temple of High Americanism?
I admit it, profoundly ashamed, my head covered with ashes: That was soooo irresponsible of me, so mindless! What is going to happen to us now?! WE HAVE BEEN EXPOSED !
“It appears that the Russian are readers of defense tech, a little while ago a Russian New Agency posted that the Russian Army will reduce it current inventory of 22,000 tanks to 2,000, all of which be T-90′s converted for T-72′s. the larger haul T-64/T-80 tanks will be scrapped.”
Problem:
They used some T-62′s in the second MRD that intervened in South Ossetia. It was both unknown and unexpected in the public that T-62′s were still in service.
This casts some doubts about Russian tank inventories and use in general.
Good Morning Mr.Ortman,
I’m sure the Russian inventory goes all the way back to the 1940′s and the T-34-85′s who last modernization was in 1969, but are still active in the Syrian and Egyptian militaries.
As for the T-62′s, the last of the T-54 variant if you recall they were the ones the US bought and provided to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. They were is such poor operating condition that with in two weeks all were broken down on the side of the road. For the U.S. this is saving $ billion in useless armored vehicles that would have been bought trying to second guess the Russian Federation. That’s money that go for healthcare, job creation and other worth while projects that the current Administration wants to do.
This is a good step for both the Americans and Russians. For the Russians it will get rid of a lot of junque that is costing Rubles to store and would be of no use in the event of War. and it will be fielding a modern armored force.
For the United States it give us a true indicator of Russian armor forces and what they have and will have. One thing for sure this make the decision to now buy the FCS a very good one. We know what the T-90 is and what it can do and we can put our efforts in dealing with the T-95 if and when it becomes operational.
In the war on terror this heroic decision on the part of the Russian will keep these old but still serviceable tanks out of Africa, Latin America and other places that the Islamic or other brands of terrorists might decide to operate out of.
This is the post CW environment one small victory at a time, that works for both sides.
A Chamber of Commerce note here. For those really interested in military technology and not just using “potty language” on line. In San Diego today the SS Dolphin goes on display as part of our Maritime Museum. It is the only place in the world that I know of where, for small fees, you can go on board a, Soviet K Class Submarine, the SS Dolphin a U.S. is a diesel Submarine, the last on active duty in the USN, and then you can visit the most recent vintage U.S. carrier on public display, the U.S. Midway. All with in easy walking distance. If one has a little more time in town there are excellent free museums at the Command Museum Marine Corps Recruit Depot, just around the corner from the Maritime museums, the aviation museum at Marine Corp Air Station Miramar and the armor exhibits at Camp Pendleton.
Not to be for gotten our Aero Space Museum in Balboa park where you can see both a Sea Dart and an A10, for free on display as well as again for a small fee a first rate aviation museum. By the way the USMC Museums are free.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
4%, 5%, or 10% of GDP spent on Defense would be acceptable to me. The important part is that it is paid for.
For FY2008 about 30% (743 billion) of the budget is not being paid for (if Social Security income is treated as debt to the Social Security trust fund and Social Security payments are treaded as servicing that debt).
To those who scream ‘cut to entitlement programs’ lets ask a few questions.
1. Do you like to drive on roads for extremely low cost?
2. Do you like receiving electricity at your home at prices you can afford?
3. How much is it worth to you to know that if you are driving in a city at night and you stop at a red light that it is not guarantied that you will be car jacked and kidnapped?
4. Do you like having the fire brigade come and put out the fire in your house?
Every one of those things is paid for by entitlement programs. (1: highway spending bill. 2: Rural electricity cost and build out subsidies. 3: Welfare. 4: Government Fire Departments.)
This country would be a craptastic place to live if these programs didn’t exist. If you want to see what it is like to live in a place where social safety nets don’t exist take a look at Brazil or India.
It all well and good to say ‘cut entitlement programs’ but I have never seen a group of Americans stand up and say you should cut the entitlement that benefits our group. (Trucker and gas subsidies, Loggers and cut rate pricing on forest logging rights, Soldiers and tax free combat pay, American workers and the government buying American products regardless of cost of the same non-American products.)
Obama is a USURPER and a COMMUNIST! He’s trying to destroy the USA. Wake up Idiots!
Clearing the Smoke on Obama
I don't think cutting the budget is a good idea. I thought that it would have been wiser to increase it so as to win the war.