• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The US Needs More Defense Spending

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We need to spend more on defense, not less.

Believe we’re spending too much on defense? Think again.


Any advantage the United States military may have enjoyed in size is shrinking.





Whenever I or someone else suggest that we need higher defense spending, there is an incredulous response from critics: U.S. military spending equals the outlays of the next eight countries combined . How can we possibly be spending too little when we spend so much more than any conceivable adversary? The answer is that, while technically accurate, this argument is so distorted that it becomes a fiction.
Global comparisons of military spending mislead for several reasons. One is secrecy. “What they report is not what they spend,” says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A second reason is that, since World War II, the United States has assumed strategic responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Neither China nor Russia has yet embraced similarly sweeping goals.
This boosts our spending and restrains theirs, says Harrison. Hence, we have 10 full-size aircraft carriers to project our power abroad; no other country comes close. Moving all those troops, tanks, ships and planes around the globe is expensive. In fiscal 2017, the U.S military consumed 98 million barrels of oil, costing $8.8 billion.

But there’s another reason Chinese and Russian spending is understated. Put simply, their soldiers and sailors cost less; ours cost more. We are a rich country with a volunteer military. Given the personal sacrifices that service members make, their wages and fringe benefits must be competitive to attract the needed recruits. China and Russia have lower costs and can buy more for less.
“Due to differences in purchasing power across economies . . . two countries could hypothetically field the same size and quality force at dramatically different spending levels,” said a 2017 report from the Center for National Defense at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. . . .

Defense no longer dominates the federal budget, as it once did. That distinction has fallen to health and retirement benefits. During the Cold War — from 1950 to 1990 — military outlays averaged 40 percent of federal spending and 7.4 percent of the economy’s output (gross domestic product). Now those figures are 15 percent and 3.13 percent, respectively, according to a recent CSIS report co- written by Harrison and Seamus P. Daniels.
It’s also true, as we’ve learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, that military power has its limits. We can’t spend our way to victory; but we can probably skimp our way to defeat.



 
Spend more money than a bunch of the top spending countries combined.

No, need to spend more on our country, not killing brown people across the globe to allow our corporations to exploit their countries
 
Bull****.

Spend more money than a bunch of the top spending countries combined.

No, need to spend more on our country, not killing brown people across the globe to allow our corporations to exploit their countries

I suggest you acquaint yourselves with the facts and debate those, rather than defaulting immediately to an uninformed rant.
 
I suggest you acquaint yourselves with the facts and debate those, rather than defaulting immediately to an uninformed rant.

Until there is accountability for the money that is allocated, the puff piece you cited is simple bull****.
 
$8.8 billion on oil? Out of what $700.0 billion; math’s a bit rusty here, 1.5% maybe
 
We need to spend more on defense, not less.
This seems to be 100% about spending figures, with zero reference to what it’s spent on. There are passing (and, IMO, flawed) assumptions about what the US military does but no consideration of what it should be doing (more, less or different) or the actual costs of doing those things properly.

I mean, if this is really just about is increasing US military spending, why not just scrap all the efforts to reduce waste and inefficiency? :cool:
 
I suggest you acquaint yourselves with the facts and debate those, rather than defaulting immediately to an uninformed rant.

So you support significant wartime tax rates, I would guess.
 
We need to spend more on defense, not less.

Believe we’re spending too much on defense? Think again.

<<snipped to accommodate character count limitation. . .>>


I agree that the surest way to not have to go to war to defend ourselves is to maintain a defense so powerful nobody will dare mess with us. I don't agree that offensive power had limitations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We could have ended both quickly, decisively, and completely fairly quickly with our military might. But when we pull our punches to minimize collateral damage whether that is out of compassion or political correctness, we aren't going to win any war.

In WWII, the Allies didn't go out of their way to harm civilians, but neither did they pull their punches because civilians were at risk. All Axis countries were attacked with maximum force until all three unconditionally surrendered. They got their sovereignty back only by meeting the Allies' conditions and we stuck around while they formed new non aggressive governments and restored order. And all countries are now allies, trading partners, and friends of the USA. And the civilians are infinitely better off in all the Axis countries.

Since WWII we haven't won any wars. We just at some point stop fighting them. And we haven't made any friends but leave enemies behind in every case. I think we really need to rethink that.

How much defense budget is enough? I don't know. But I sure don't want us to scrimp our way to vulnerability. We have an Administration now who understands the concept of peace through strength. I don't want to lose that.
 
Until there is accountability for the money that is allocated, the puff piece you cited is simple bull****.


I dont agree with you much but you are absolutely right about that. I want public accounting of not just the DOD but EVERY department in the federal government.
 
I agree that the surest way to not have to go to war to defend ourselves is to maintain a defense so powerful nobody will dare mess with us. I don't agree that offensive power had limitations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We could have ended both quickly, decisively, and completely fairly quickly with our military might. But when we pull our punches to minimize collateral damage whether that is out of compassion or political correctness, we aren't going to win any war.

In WWII, the Allies didn't go out of their way to harm civilians, but neither did they pull their punches because civilians were at risk. All Axis countries were attacked with maximum force until all three unconditionally surrendered. They got their sovereignty back only by meeting the Allies' conditions and we stuck around while they formed new non aggressive governments and restored order. And all countries are now allies, trading partners, and friends of the USA. And the civilians are infinitely better off in all the Axis countries.

Since WWII we haven't won any wars. We just at some point stop fighting them. And we haven't made any friends but leave enemies behind in every case. I think we really need to rethink that.

How much defense budget is enough? I don't know. But I sure don't want us to scrimp our way to vulnerability. We have an Administration now who understands the concept of peace through strength. I don't want to lose that.

I agree with most of what you said except the last, that this administration knows the concept peace through strength. I dont think they do as an administration.
 
We need to spend more on defense, not less.

Believe we’re spending too much on defense? Think again.


Any advantage the United States military may have enjoyed in size is shrinking.





Whenever I or someone else suggest that we need higher defense spending, there is an incredulous response from critics: U.S. military spending equals the outlays of the next eight countries combined . How can we possibly be spending too little when we spend so much more than any conceivable adversary? The answer is that, while technically accurate, this argument is so distorted that it becomes a fiction.
Global comparisons of military spending mislead for several reasons. One is secrecy. “What they report is not what they spend,” says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A second reason is that, since World War II, the United States has assumed strategic responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Neither China nor Russia has yet embraced similarly sweeping goals.
This boosts our spending and restrains theirs, says Harrison. Hence, we have 10 full-size aircraft carriers to project our power abroad; no other country comes close. Moving all those troops, tanks, ships and planes around the globe is expensive. In fiscal 2017, the U.S military consumed 98 million barrels of oil, costing $8.8 billion.

………………… section cut due to length restriction. PirateMk1 ………………………….

Defense no longer dominates the federal budget, as it once did. That distinction has fallen to health and retirement benefits. During the Cold War — from 1950 to 1990 — military outlays averaged 40 percent of federal spending and 7.4 percent of the economy’s output (gross domestic product). Now those figures are 15 percent and 3.13 percent, respectively, according to a recent CSIS report co- written by Harrison and Seamus P. Daniels.
It’s also true, as we’ve learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, that military power has its limits. We can’t spend our way to victory; but we can probably skimp our way to defeat.





The only reason we need to spend more is because we dont use what we have effectively in the long term. We have plenty of money for our military, the problem we have is misuse of the money by the military, and misuse of the military by administrations. So no we dont need to spend more, we need to use what we have better and more efficiently and insure those in charge of the money at DOD are acutely aware that they are and will be held to account for misuse and loss and wastage of the money they are given. I remember when the DOD lost several BILLION dollars in recent memory, they supposedly have NO idea where it went. Last I checked it was never found. No heads rolled over that. Heads need to roll, regularly for a awhile.
 
This seems to be 100% about spending figures, with zero reference to what it’s spent on. There are passing (and, IMO, flawed) assumptions about what the US military does but no consideration of what it should be doing (more, less or different) or the actual costs of doing those things properly.

I mean, if this is really just about is increasing US military spending, why not just scrap all the efforts to reduce waste and inefficiency? :cool:

We would spend more because we need more, not to waste more.
 
I agree that the surest way to not have to go to war to defend ourselves is to maintain a defense so powerful nobody will dare mess with us. I don't agree that offensive power had limitations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We could have ended both quickly, decisively, and completely fairly quickly with our military might. But when we pull our punches to minimize collateral damage whether that is out of compassion or political correctness, we aren't going to win any war.

In WWII, the Allies didn't go out of their way to harm civilians, but neither did they pull their punches because civilians were at risk. All Axis countries were attacked with maximum force until all three unconditionally surrendered. They got their sovereignty back only by meeting the Allies' conditions and we stuck around while they formed new non aggressive governments and restored order. And all countries are now allies, trading partners, and friends of the USA. And the civilians are infinitely better off in all the Axis countries.

Since WWII we haven't won any wars. We just at some point stop fighting them. And we haven't made any friends but leave enemies behind in every case. I think we really need to rethink that.

How much defense budget is enough? I don't know. But I sure don't want us to scrimp our way to vulnerability. We have an Administration now who understands the concept of peace through strength. I don't want to lose that.

Fair enough. My fear is that our current POTUS has only a play soldier understanding of what's involved.
 
I have said before that we needed a tax increase last year, not a tax cut.

Awesome. Your upcoming votes will reflect this desire, yes?
 
The only reason we need to spend more is because we dont use what we have effectively in the long term. We have plenty of money for our military, the problem we have is misuse of the money by the military, and misuse of the military by administrations. So no we dont need to spend more, we need to use what we have better and more efficiently and insure those in charge of the money at DOD are acutely aware that they are and will be held to account for misuse and loss and wastage of the money they are given. I remember when the DOD lost several BILLION dollars in recent memory, they supposedly have NO idea where it went. Last I checked it was never found. No heads rolled over that. Heads need to roll, regularly for a awhile.

I doubt there's enough waste in the system to make much difference.
 
We would spend more because we need more, not to waste more.
That isn’t what the article in your OP says though, that was my point. The only factor it considered was total amount spent compared to total amount spent by other nations (measured and adjusted in different ways).

Surely, the correct way to approach this is to work out what you want the military to actually achieve, then what resources they would need to achieve that and how much those resources would cost. That should determine the military budget. How that total amount compares to what other nations spend is irrelevant as long as the military can achieve its aims.
 
Fair enough. My fear is that our current POTUS has only a play soldier understanding of what's involved.

No POTUS other than somebody like Eisenhower is going to have much understanding of what is involved. You just have to have the right attitude about it and choose the right people to run it. Somebody like President Obama doesn't want the USA to be a super power and looked at the military as a necessary evil for the most part. His lead from behind concept of course resulted in little or no leadership at all. President Trump has the right instincts and concept and had a DOD Secretary who agreed with with all of it EXCEPT in different points of view re what U.S. involvement ought to be. Time will tell whether Mattis or President Trump was right about that. As I have no way of knowing who is most right, I will reserve my opinion on it.

I come from a military family and have a couple of friends and one family member currently in the DOD and one who recently retired. They tell me that things are much better under the Trump Administration than they were under Obama however they characterize 'better'. And one of them hates President Trump with a passion but concedes he is doing a good job with defense. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom