How much military do we need?

We now spend 5 times as much as we did at the height of WWII? Crazy.

Maybe we should concentrate on good old intelligence and boots on the ground rather than equipment designed to combat Evil Commies? Oh, and not getting involved with nation-building.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/absorbed.html

… Let us begin with the most obvious point. Most people are ready to concede that defense is one function that government should provide. The first act of a Republican administration is to vastly expand military spending, always with the assumption that unless hundreds of billions more is spent, the country will be left undefended. When Republicans are running the show, it seems that there is no limit to how far this racket can be carried. We proceed as if the need to drink means that we should shove the water hose down our throat. At the height of World War II, before spending plummeted after the war ended, the federal government spent less than $90 billion on defense, which was the same spent as late as 1961. Today it spends five times that amount in current dollars. Might the excuse of defense serve as a convenient way to slather money on military contractors and to otherwise feed the friends of the government? …

As much as we can get. :wink:

Seriously, you can’t compare the cost of today’s military to the cost of the military we had in WWII. Our military probably also costs a lot more than Napoleon’s did when he took over Europe, but it’s simply not a fair comparison. The cost of milk is a lot more than it was in WWII too. Is some of the technology we buy overpriced, sure, but so is the cost of your MP3 player. The scope of what the U.S. military does now is far larger than the scope of plugging tanks, airplanes, and GIs into the European theater, and ships and Marines into the Pacific. A better indicator is spending as percentage of GDP. During WWII, military spending was around 38% of GDP. Now, it’s closer to 4%. So yes, we might be spending 9 times as much, but it’s 9 times less as a % of GDP.

Not being involved in nation building may have contributed substantially to our involvement in WW II.

**Now, it’s closer to 4%. So yes, we might be spending 9 times as much, but it’s 9 times less as a % of GDP. **

For the just-proposed budget, defense spending will be 3.9% of GDP. A bargain, some would say, and too much, others would say. A little of it is sleight of hand, though, as the administration is using supplemental allocations from Congress to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan operations (82 billion this time, I think), so that doesn’t show in what the true cost of defense spending’ll be for the upcoming year.

I think that DOD’s budget goes up by 5% overall YOY. I confess to bias, as everybody here knows that I’m a military retiree (and you cats are funding my pension :wink: and my wife’s a current reservist, so I maybe shouldn’t be the one to do an actual cost/benefits analysis.

Tony

The cost of milk is a lot more than it was in WWII too.

I’m sure you know this, but your post makes it sound like that figure doesn’t include inflation adjustments. “Current dollars” means inflation adjusted dollars.

Point taken about spending as a percent of GDP, but still – 5 times the amount, in inflation adjusted dollars.

The Hi-tech weapons are junk , cruise missiles that are duds a million a crack . Patriots that hardly hit any scud misslies ( the press were told to air film of hits only ). Friggen helicopters and hummers / jeeps, kill more of our guys in training accidents ,than in getting shot down. Fixed wing aircraft are worth every cent.

The cost of the military (along with Soc. Security and Medicare) may well combine to bankrupt us. We have 20 percent of the world’s wealth, 5 percent of the population and half the world’s military resources … Yes I know we protect the entire free world, but really we protect resources and markets and I understand why it is the way it is. I offer no solution and I would rather not cut, but those three things must be almost 90 percent of what we pay to the feds right there. And people gripe about federal ‘pork’ in all these piddly programs that come and go.

The REAL cost of the military these days is more like $800 billion a year or 8 percent of GDP: The defense budget is $425 billion but there’s more: about $100 billion more a year for Afghanistan & Iraq; $60-$70 billion for vets (this is above and beyond the defense budget); tens of billions to pay off debt for military-related affairs; $20 billion for EPA cleanups caused by military-related activities … the list goes on. Since the current war v. terrorism appears perpetual, don’t expect any cuts in this in our lifetime, just cuts in everything here at home to balance it out. But will billions and billions really protect us?

“cruise missiles that are duds a million a crack”

Exactly how many of our Tomohawks do you think are duds?

“Friggen helicopters and hummers / jeeps, kill more of our guys in training accidents ,than in getting shot down”

That’s how it’s supposed to be. You train hard so that in war, you are better than the bad guy, and they won’t be able to shoot you down.

" Fixed wing aircraft are worth every cent."

Fixed wing aircraft are some of the biggest high tech things we are doing. JSF and Raptor are two of the biggest money sinks in military spending.

The Dept. of Veterans Affairs is not DoD, and isn’t really contributing to the national defense. I’m not sure what you mean by “debt for military-related affairs.” I’d be interested in seing where you got your EPA numbers from, since I’ve never seen an EPA team at a fuel spill, except to file the appropriate paperwork. Plus, that’s their job, and it’s not national defense. Yes, the list could go on and on. I could conceivably add on any activity of any kind that even remnotely touches the DoD or any members of the military or civilian DoD employees, but that’s not national defense. The DoD budget, plus supplmentals for war, and that’s about it.

The U.S. isn’t even in the top 25 countries in the world with regard to spending as percentage of GDP, yet we provide the largest part of global defense. I’ll be happy to see our spending come down, once someone else decides to take up some of the slack.

" Fixed wing aircraft are worth every cent."

Fixed wing aircraft are some of the biggest high tech things we are doing. JSF and Raptor are two of the biggest money sinks in military spending.

Maybe I should say , Aircraft in service , not test bed - R&N aircraft.

As a rule B-52’s - bell 205 ( Hueys ) - 130s - C117 - F16 -F18 , seem to have longer life than a Missile or the poor crew that ran their hummer into the river, no where near the action.

I think they got every penny out of the B-52 design ???

The use of a smart bomb to kill 10 enemy troop , when 30 rds of .223 would do , isn’t smart.

“I think they got every penny out of the B-52 design ???”

They sure did, but these aircraft get pretty scary after awhile. Some of these older airframes simply aren’t safe, and quite frankly, some of our fighter aircraft just aren’t as good as the other guys. What allows us to be better is doctrine, training, quality of our pilots etc. I have no problem with developing new airframes that will perform as well as other aircraft around the world, and I don’t have a problem with refitting current airframes like the F-16.

“s a rule B-52’s - bell 205 ( Hueys ) - 130s - C117 - F16 -F18 , seem to have longer life than a Missile or the poor crew that ran their hummer into the river, no where near the action.”

I think you might be surprised how many fixed wing aircraft crash each year. That said, I’m sure there are lots of Hummer accidents and munitions accidents , etc, etc.

“The use of a smart bomb to kill 10 enemy troop , when 30 rds of .223 would do , isn’t smart.”

It is smart if the cost your worried about is human. I’d rather spend a couple extra bucks than risk a pilot to SAM sites if I don’t have to.

“The use of a smart bomb to kill 10 enemy troop , when 30 rds of .223 would do , isn’t smart.”

It is smart if the cost your worried about is human. I’d rather spend a couple extra bucks than risk a pilot to SAM sites if I don’t have to.

I hear that, spend a few bucks to save someones ass , War has become more of a testing ground to improve sales of **battle tested **gear . When a stone age weapon would have worked much better, without batteries , NVGs , someone dies testing that crap .

Aircraft ( airframes ) are cheap , Black boxes cost $$$$ , and are obsolete a few months after installation.

The Hi-tech weapons are junk , cruise missiles that are duds a million a crack . Patriots that hardly hit any scud misslies ( the press were told to air film of hits only ). Friggen helicopters and hummers / jeeps, kill more of our guys in training accidents ,than in getting shot down. Fixed wing aircraft are worth every cent.
So what do you propose? Should we do away with rotary wing aircraft? Last time I checked it would be pretty difficult for a fixed wing aircraft to land in the middle of a city in Iraq and drop 20 Rangers, it would also be tough for a fixed wing aircraft to fly in between buildings of an urban battlefield and provide effective air cover for ground forces. It would be difficult for a fixed wing to provide effective air cover for a slow moving convoy. Thats 3 good reasons why we need the little bird, blackhawk/chinook, and apache. Fixed wing crash a lot more in training than in battle as well, I don’t know what facts you have that make you believe that only helicopters crash in traning? Maybe I am biased though being branched Army aviation.

“en a stone age weapon would have worked much better”

Those weapons don’t work better. Just take air sorties for an example. We can fly much much fewer bombing sorties to destoy the same amount of targets than we would have even ten years ago. Better bombs, nav equipment, missiles, etc mean we can hit what we want to hit, instead of flying wave after wave after wave of bombing aircraft just hoping we hit something. Technology isn’t the singular factor in mitlitary success, but it is an aid.

“The U.S. isn’t even in the top 25 countries in the world with regard to spending as percentage of GDP, yet we provide the largest part of global defense. I’ll be happy to see our spending come down, once someone else decides to take up some of the slack.”

Are all those 25 other countries our enemies? If not, then we have some allies who are doing more (per person) than we are.

Here’s where I got that info. The article is a year old and I can’t remember where I grabbed it from, either lewrockwell.com (libertarian site) or “Common Dreams” (liberal site): Francis writes for the Christian Science Monitor, I think:

Hidden defense costs add up to double trouble

**By David R. Francis **

To measure actual spending by the United States on defense, take the federal budget number for the Pentagon and double it.

That’s the “rule of thumb” advocated by economic historian Robert Higgs.

Early this month, President Bush requested $401.7 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD) for fiscal 2005. So doubling that would make total defense/security spending close to $800 billion out of a total federal budget of $2.4 trillion.

In his budget message, Mr. Bush repeatedly notes the “war on terror” in referring to defense, though most of those outlays have little to do with that, according to Mr. Higgs, editor of the Independent Institute’s quarterly review.

Like other defense analysts, he adds to the Pentagon cost number the nuclear-weapons activities of the Department of Energy, including cleanup of radiation-contaminated sites. Bush wants Energy Department scientists to develop nuclear “bunker busters” and other new weapons. Energy’s total defense spending: at least $18.5 billion, reckons Higgs.

An oft-noted omission from the DoD’s 2005 budget is the extra costs for activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. For fiscal 2004, a supplemental appropriation last November provided $58.8 billion for that purpose. The Defense Department hasn’t yet put a number on 2005 costs, arguing before Congress that it was unknown.

“They wanted to avoid sticker shock prior to the election,” says Christopher Hellman, an analyst with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

But the White House’s Office of Management and Budget indicates the 2005 cost would be about $50 billion. Monthly defense expenditures in the two nations - the “burn rate” - are running between $3.5 billion and $4.5 billion per month.

There are more hidden defense costs. Higgs includes some $4 billion in “foreign military financing” plus other foreign aid made with defense goals, rather than economic development, in mind. For example, the US offered Turkey $6 billion to defray the cost of an Iraq war if American troops were allowed to pass through the nation - a deal the Turkish parliament rejected.

Higgs estimates the State Department and international assistance programs “arguably related” to defense add at least $17.6 billion to defense costs.

Other defense-related costs include care of veterans - hospitals, nursing homes, disability payments, pensions, etc. The Bush budget calls for $67.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2005.

Another cost Higgs sees as a matter of defense is the Department of Homeland Security. Bush wants $31 billion allocated here next year.

The largest item noted by Higgs is interest on the national debt related to defense spending. Higgs calculates that the proportional amount for every year from 1916 - when the debt was nearly zero - through 2002 comes to 81 percent of the total debt held by the public. The interest charges he attributes to defense came to $138.7 billion in 2002.

With many numbers still unavailable, Higgs hasn’t finished his calculations for fiscal 2004. But doubling the DoD budget request won’t overstate the truth by much, he says.

The unwillingness of the Bush administration to ask Congress for extra money for Iraq will have “real consequences,” says Winslow Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Center for Defense Information. To cover additional costs, DoD will “raid” its operations and maintenance accounts. He says that will mean less training for troops and poorer maintenance of military equipment.

Some troops in Iraq lack sufficient body armor and equipment needed to storm buildings, says Mr. Hellman. Soldiers have also reportedly asked families to buy expensive night-vision goggles for them.

Mr. Wheeler terms the Higgs numbers “a legitimate exercise to calculate all conceivable costs of national security.”

Other defense analysts don’t go along entirely with Higgs’s accounting methods. Yet they do agree that the true cost of defense is many billions more than the DoD budget. It’s “far in excess of what is formally acknowledged,” says Loren Thompson, an analyst at the conservative Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.

The US is “last of the big-time spenders” on defense in the world, notes a table from Hellman’s Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

At the moment, Petter Stålenheim at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute figures the US will account for between 45 and 50 percent of the world’s military spending in 2003. The US boosted spending by 6 percent last year; Britain raised defense spending 1 percent; France 1.8 percent, and Russia 14 percent, says Mr. Stålenheim. Germany cut spending a little. Italy fell 8 percent. The Bush budget for 2005 calls for a 7 percent hike in DoD spending.

Right now, Wheeler says, the defense budget is “gigantic … compared to any potential foe.”

Though US defense costs are high, Democrats are not likely to push for cuts in an election year when polls indicate the public perceives Republicans as stronger than Democrats on defense issues.

Critics charge that defense spending includes too many wasteful “cold war legacy” programs. Here, says Mr. Thompson, critics tend to agree with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He has been pushing for “transformation” of defense spending by closing unneeded bases and shutting down weapons programs unsuited to today’s wars or threats.

With huge budget deficits, the nation can’t afford such out-of-date weapons systems and programs, Hellman says.

"Are all those 25 other countries our enemies? If not, then we have some allies who are doing more (per person) than we are. So those sentences sort of contradict each other. "

The countries are:

N. Korea
Congo
Eritrea
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Qatar
Syria
Angola
Israel
Jordan
Ethiopoa
Vietnam
Armenia
Algeria
Berundi
Yemen
Serbia/Montenegro
Brunei
Singapore
Turkey
Myanmar
Suriname
Sudan
Russia

So, not all enemies, but plenty to go around. My statement isn’t contradictory, since not too many of those top 25 are using their defense expenditures for global peacekeeping or defense, but are using that money strictly for their own militaries.

Certainly you can follow the DoD budget doubled rule. However, you would need to do that for most other countries too, since they have similar expenditures that don’t strictly fall under their defense depts budgets. Much of our intelligence, for instance, is national defense related, but not covered by DoD budget. Same with everyone else. I’m not going to argue against the idea that more money goes to national defense than just the DoD budget, but hat’s the case with every country.

So what do you propose? Should we do away with rotary wing aircraft? Last time I checked it would be pretty difficult for a fixed wing aircraft to land in the middle of a city in Iraq and drop 20 Rangers, it would also be tough for a fixed wing aircraft to fly in between buildings of an urban battlefield and provide effective air cover for ground forces. It would be difficult for a fixed wing to provide effective air cover for a slow moving convoy. Thats 3 good reasons why we need the little bird, blackhawk/chinook, and apache. Fixed wing crash a lot more in training than in battle as well, I don’t know what facts you have that make you believe that only helicopters crash in traning? Maybe I am biased though being branched Army aviation As for helicopters the loss of life is greater in a H-60 or 53 , flies into dust cloud fully loaded with troops and crashes . If a guy ejects out of jet because his wing is gone or on fire , and sits on the ground listening to his Ipod till the rescue boys get him. Which is the greater loss ??? Bombs are cheap , an RPG in a chopper can be bad. Land when the buildings are flat and the ground is black.

“If a guy ejects out of jet because his wing is gone or on fire , and sits on the ground listening to his Ipod till the rescue boys get him.”

You think that’s what a pilot is doing when he crashes?

"Bombs are cheap , an RPG in a chopper can be bad. Land when the buildings are flat and the ground is black. "

If you think this is correct, you don’t know as much about operations as your use of jargon would suggest. Sometimes you need guys on the ground. Sometimes you need to support them. Sometimes you need to accomplish operations without flattening everything underneath you. Helicopters are amazingly useful, especially to the Marine Corps and the Navy.

“en a stone age weapon would have worked much better”

Those weapons don’t work better. Just take air sorties for an example. We can fly much much fewer bombing sorties to destoy the same amount of targets than we would have even ten years ago. Better bombs, nav equipment, missiles, etc mean we can hit what we want to hit, instead of flying wave after wave after wave of bombing aircraft just hoping we hit something. Technology isn’t the singular factor in mitlitary success, but it is an aid.

In the first “desert storm” war they welded mounts to rigg 500 lb. WWII bombs on A-10s , f-16s or 18s I think , WHY because they had bunkers FULL of them and they were cheap .They use old navy battle ship gun barrels to make bunker busters bombs, smart & cheap. Shit we are on a roll Now. THEY TOOK AN OLD B-52 THAT CAN FLY WITHOUT A BUNCH OF BLACK BOXES ,THAT GROUND IT WHEN A BREAKER POPS. War is big business and we like to sell weapons, Peace through superior fire power. Thats our game. Jack up the cost. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/images/clear_shim.gif
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/images/clear_shim.gif

Just to be historically correct and for your edification, the US occupied and rebuilt Japan following WWII.