Do recent global developments change your view on defense spending?

[Winston]

I’m curious how recent events will effect public perception on this topic.

Humans have the unsettling habit of making war. It’s been going on since the dawn of civilization.

I think it unwise to think the world is without threat as we have all been seeing on Twitter over the past 10 days.

That said, I also think the defense lobbyists in DC are basically fleecing the American tax payer and that, collectively we could use the money we give to them in a far more useful way. So, I do still support cutting defense, because our military budget is already bloated. And I’m against the kind of corruption that the defense lobbyists and politicians engage in

 

[Fishking]

We spend too much, and what is happening now doesn't change that fact. Why should the US carry the financial burden of the entire rest of the world on their shoulders?

 

[Northern Light]

It's not a matter of spending, but military priorities. There was no reason to establish "defensive" weapon platforms so close to Russia. We were warned for years not to do it, and then we did it anyway. Russia is hardly the good guy but NATO has created a classic security dilemma with its hawkish foreign policy, all because the western billionaires want to isolate Russia in order to perpetuate a one-economy. It needs to stop.

 

[Felis Leo]

I’m curious how recent events will effect public perception on this topic.

Humans have the unsettling habit of making war. It’s been going on since the dawn of civilization.

I think it unwise to think the world is without threat as we have all been seeing on Twitter over the past 10 days.

That said, I also think the defense lobbyists in DC are basically fleecing the American tax payer and that, collectively we could use the money we give to them in a far more useful way. So, I do still support cutting defense, because our military budget is already bloated. And I’m against the kind of corruption that the defense lobbyists and politicians engage in

It is a good question, Winston. I think we should maintain our current level of defense spending because we are dealing with multiple adversarial powers who wish us and our allies harm. But after the last twenty years of unquestioned bloat, waste and the obvious fleecing of American taxpayers to the tune of trillions of dollars, we need more than anemic oversight. What we need is the recreation of something along the lines of the Truman Committee to bring defense contractors to heel, hold them accountable, and to do clawbacks when money is clearly being misappropriated.

Oh, and since we only have a handful of defense contractors which form an oligopoly, the United States government should be pursuing anti-trust action against them. The defense contractors should be broken up in order to make the American defense industry more competitive.

 

[Felis Leo]

It's not a matter of spending, but military priorities. There was no reason to establish "defensive" weapon platforms so close to Russia. We were warned for years not to do it, and then we did it anyway. Russia is hardly the good guy but NATO has created a classic security dilemma with its hawkish foreign policy, all because the western billionaires want to isolate Russia in order to perpetuate a one-economy. It needs to stop.

Wouldn't that presume the Russian nation in general and the Putin regime in particular have no pre-existing interests save reactionary responses towards what outsiders do, Northern Light? I see no evidence that even had NATO had not expanded one inch since the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine would not still be in the same position they are in now.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I worked in defense contracting until recently, and given that the tech curve is pretty much vertical right now, I support defense spending.

Also, you get some nice spin-off tech. Like this internet thing we're using.

 

[Hamish Howl]

It's not a matter of spending, but military priorities. There was no reason to establish "defensive" weapon platforms so close to Russia. We were warned for years not to do it, and then we did it anyway. Russia is hardly the good guy but NATO has created a classic security dilemma with its hawkish foreign policy, all because the western billionaires want to isolate Russia in order to perpetuate a one-economy. It needs to stop.

That's a neat way to say you're all in for Putin.

 

[Felis Leo]

That's a neat way to say you're all in for Putin.

But Hamish, don't you see that our refusal to allow Ukraine into NATO was a direct provocation aimed at Vladimir Putin?

 

[Hamish Howl]

But Hamish, don't you see that our refusal to allow Ukraine into NATO was a direct provocation aimed at Vladimir Putin?

Look what we MADE him do. By doing as he asked.

 

[Felis Leo]

Look what we MADE him do. By doing as he asked.

It must have been the tone with which we did it. That would probably explain it. He saw the side eye.

 

[Grand Mal]

We spend too much, and what is happening now doesn't change that fact. Why should the US carry the financial burden of the entire rest of the world on their shoulders?

You spend too much because you maintain bases and facilities all around the world. Care to guess how many American military personnel are on one island, Okinawa? 26,000. Care to guess what that costs? And that's just one out of dozens of examples.

 

[Hamish Howl]

You spend too much because you maintain bases and facilities all around the world. Care to guess how many American military personnel are on one island, Okinawa? 26,000. Care to guess what that costs? And that's just one out of dozens of examples.

Yeah, well, China and North Korea are right there.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I’m curious how recent events will effect public perception on this topic.

Humans have the unsettling habit of making war. It’s been going on since the dawn of civilization.

I think it unwise to think the world is without threat as we have all been seeing on Twitter over the past 10 days.

That said, I also think the defense lobbyists in DC are basically fleecing the American tax payer and that, collectively we could use the money we give to them in a far more useful way. So, I do still support cutting defense, because our military budget is already bloated. And I’m against the kind of corruption that the defense lobbyists and politicians engage in

That defense cut won't matter until we actually have to fight somebody. Unless of course you believe that one nation generally tries not to fight with another that is as strong or stronger than they are. ounce of Prevention is worth a pound of cure , I believe they say.

 

[Fishking]

You spend too much because you maintain bases and facilities all around the world. Care to guess how many American military personnel are on one island, Okinawa? 26,000. Care to guess what that costs? And that's just one out of dozens of examples.

Yup...we are in agreement. We spend so much to provide security for the rest of the world. And that spending often goes right from our tax dollars and into the economies of those countries. Like your example, bases are often leased, so there is money. Then you have all the support jobs that are done by Okinawa. Then you have all the Service Members going out and spending their money in Okinawa.

 

[jaypatriot]

I do still support cutting defense, because our military budget is already bloated.

Do you have real evidence we have a bloated military budget?
Based on what? Your vision of an America which transfers billions for defense to domestic social programs to make everyone equal?

 

[jaypatriot]

Yup...we are in agreement. We spend so much to provide security for the rest of the world. And that spending often goes right from our tax dollars and into the economies of those countries. Like your example, bases are often leased, so there is money. Then you have all the support jobs that are done by Okinawa. Then you have all the Service Members going out and spending their money in Okinawa.

Do you have a good idea of many overseas bases we should have in order to provide security to our friends and allies around the world?
Which countries should we abandon in order to suit your vision of global support to our allies?

 

[romance]

I BARELY support maintaining our defense. The blatant misuse and misappropriation of our Defense Budget infuriates me. Reading an article several months ago about the sheer waste committed in Afghanistan absolutely blows me away and leads me to believe that the Pentagon hands out millions, no billions, to contractors to build roads to nowhere, planes that will never fly, and prisons that will never be finished or ever see a prisoner, all on the taxpayer's dime, does nothing to ensure our continued freedom or our allies. Obviously, with this latest provocation I think it's great we have the military we have but a serious audit by outside forces should be conducted and the bloat should be trimmed.

Less spending on bullshit and perhaps more spending on upgraded cyber security infrastructure and training, and also weapons that actually work would be the best thing for everyone. The Pentagon seems to be allergic to the idea of any real audit though and gee I wonder why.

 

[jaypatriot]

I BARELY support maintaining our defense. The blatant misuse and misappropriation of our Defense Budget infuriates me. Reading an article several months ago about the sheer waste committed in Afghanistan absolutely blows me away and leads me to believe that the Pentagon hands out millions, no billions, to contractors to build roads to nowhere, planes that will never fly, and prisons that will never be finished or ever see a prisoner, all on the taxpayer's dime, does nothing to ensure our continued freedom or our allies. Obviously, with this latest provocation I think it's great we have the military we have but a serious audit by outside forces should be conducted and the bloat should be trimmed.

Less spending on bullshit and perhaps more spending on upgraded cyber security infrastructure and training, and also weapons that actually work would be the best thing for everyone. The Pentagon seems to be allergic to the idea of any real audit though and gee I wonder why.

So who exactly was responsible for leaving behind between $10 and $80 billion of defense equipment for the Taliban goat herders to figure out how to use against their enemies?
Was his name Joe Biden?

Here’s the List of Billions in Military Equipment the US Left Behind for the Taliban | Brad Polumbo

“The Taliban now has more Black Hawk helicopters than 85% of the countries in the world,” Congressman Jim Banks, a veteran, lamented. “But it's not just weapons. They have night vision goggles and body armor."

fee.org

Your second paragraph is a lot more practical than your first.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

on the taxpayer's dime, does nothing to ensure our continued freedom

FrEeDuMbZ$™.
I insist on perpetual FrEeDuMbZ$™.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Well...I cant ignore the fact that all those billions and billions spent on "defense", and that didnt stop a 'Stan from getting invaded halfway around the world.
So...yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Spend that money on ANYTHING at all besides warmongering. House the homeless. Feed them.

 

[Schism]

I've been in defense and gov't contracting since the late 80's and I vote we scale way back to our borders and territorial waters.

We need to get out of the worldwide aggression business.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Wouldn't that presume the Russian nation in general and the Putin regime in particular have no pre-existing interests save reactionary responses towards what outsiders do, Northern Light? I see no evidence that even had NATO had not expanded one inch since the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine would not still be in the same position they are in now.

You’re creating a historical scenario that diverges so far from OTL that you can’t possibly claim that with certainty.

It’s not just the NATO expansion, it’s the raiding of Russia’s economy that was performed by western countries, there’s the invasions of Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombing of Libya, which conclusively prove that NATO is not defensive in nature, as none of those wars were defensively necessary to ensure the integrity of member states, along with increasingly Russophobix rhetoric ever since Putin took office because unlike Yeltsin, a drunken old fool who literally walked drunk out the front door of a DC hotel in his underwear to try to get pizza, Putin is not someone who the western media/government/NGO apparatus can control.

The issue is not solely NATO, it’s the increasingly hostile west continually moving closer and closer to Russia. A IRBM launched in Kharkov can wipe Moscow off the map in under 5 minutes, and it takes 10 for the defense ministry to order a retaliatory strike against the US. This was an existential threat and NATOs actions since the Cold War indicate we are aggressors who start wars to implement regime change in our image.

 

[MikePrime]

Well...I cant ignore the fact that all those billions and billions spent on "defense", and that didnt stop a 'Stan from getting invaded halfway around the world.
So...yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Spend that money on ANYTHING at all besides warmongering. House the homeless. Feed them.

The decrease in comparative military power in why things like this can happen. We aren't what we were in the 80's.

No, fund the military so that there is global peace

Funding a military isn't warmongering, its a deterrent and its works

No, don't house the homeless, the majority choose to be homeless and it waste hardworking American dollars

 

[Evilroddy]

"Defence spending" by what countries? If this thread is limited to just the USA, then yes, there is a need to cut defence spending and to better rationalise the size and configuration of the American armed forces to better suit realistic military priorities. I also think that the phrase "defence spending" is a crock of $h!t because the US armed force are configured as much about power projection and military intervention as they are about defence. Thus this is "military spending" or "offence spending" or "war spending" as much as it is "defence spending".

In the light of the Russo-Ukrainian War presently unfolding before our eyes, we are seeing that the spectre of nuclear war is making all of the massive might of the American military's conventional war-waging capacity neutered due to fear of escalation of the conflict beyond a nuclear threshold. So what good are so many power-projection aircraft carrier task groups, so many amphibious assault groups and so much absurdly expensive military hardware when confronting other top-tier, nuclear-armed states? They're of almost no real value against top-tier, nuclear-armed states. Such systems are really only valuable when attacking second and third tier military powers which lack nuclear weapons. Therefore the amounts and the roles of these kinds of antiquated military systems needs to be reexamined and the US armed forces must be redesigned to do more with less under more limited expectations about what roles and missions the US military can do..

If the question is about an increase in defence spending more generally, then the answer is mixed. Would I like to see China, Russia India, Pakistan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Turkey or Brazil spend more on military spending? No. But some countries do need to spend more. Canada, Germany, several other Western European countries and the U.K. need to sort out their increasingly moribund militaries to varying degrees. So here more military spending is in my opinion, is needed.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[bongsaway]

We spend too much, and what is happening now doesn't change that fact. Why should the US carry the financial burden of the entire rest of the world on their shoulders?

We do spend too much but it isn't because we carry the financial burden of the rest of the world. It's because there is money to be made in making weapons.