Why do we spend so much on the military?

[Brewstoo]

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

Because we have a worldwide influence. We need the capability to fight a war in Iraq and Afganistan, maintain peace keeping in Africa, provide disaster relief in Haiti, and keep units standing on NATO allies all at the same time.

Oh we also provide pay and benefits for soldiers that very few other countries provide.

 

[Occam's Razor]

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

Sure, to fulfill the dream of a PAX Ameircana ensured by the U.S. remaining the sole superpower.

To ensure "american interests" (read: resource and economic dominance) remain in american control

Lastly, but not least, to support a massive private arms and military support services "industrial complex" which must grow its sales and profits... And with constant war, 25 major companies and their lobbyists would cease to exist.

 

[Beaudreaux]

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

There's no simple answer. Our economy is large, but so are our regulatory requirements (environmental, etc.), level of technological advances, and so on. All of which run up the costs. China, just as an example, doesn't give a flip about the environment and they steal most of their tech from us, so they don't have those costs.

 

[celticwar17]

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

We are the only one's that hold back Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc..... we provide a balance in the world, one of peace. The reason there has not been a world war in 70 years, is because of the US and our military strength.

If it were not for the US, S Korea would not exist, China would have expanded by now, Russia would attempt to gain as much of the former territory the soviet union had... and the Soviet Union itself would still exist...
There are many countries with nuclear weapons now... and we are the only thing to fear for tyrants.

 

[soot]

Because we have a worldwide influence. We need the capability to fight a war in Iraq and Afganistan, maintain peace keeping in Africa, provide disaster relief in Haiti, and keep units standing on NATO allies all at the same time.

I think the idea that we have worldwide influence commensurate with the amount of money and effort we put in to "buying" worldwide influence is a total and complete illusion.

Economically we cut deals all over the world where manufacturers and foreign national laborers "win" and the average American man or woman "loses".

Militarily a pack of ragged savages essentially fought us to a standstill for ~15 years in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the minute we left, in defeat, they went back to business as usual, or worse.

Diplomatically we just negotiated a deal with Iran where we came out losers, if not laughing stocks.

In terms of alliances we have allies who are more influenced by how the wind is blowing than any real loyalty to us when it comes to standing with us, or more likely behind us, and even then just for show (I'm looking at you South Korea, you're welcome for your freedom and 60 years of continued defense, and thanks for sending 16 "fresh water technicians" to Iraq when we needed you most - just by way of example).

China spends about 1/5th what we do on defense and when they say jump we have to ask them how high.

We're definitely doing something wrong.

Unless you're one of the 1% who rotate between investment banks, defense contractors, the White House, Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and Foggy Bottom.

Then, if you're one of those guys, our military complex certainly makes sense.

 

[joG]

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

IT has twofold reasons. One is the historical one and the other is the fact that we depend on international movement and security of people and goods. It is cheaper to have overwhelming power with recurring lage demonstrations thereof to having continuous little skirmishes and battles here and there. As we run down the military spending the number of clashes will increase and so will the total costs.

 

[natsb]

IT has twofold reasons. One is the historical one and the other is the fact that we depend on international movement and security of people and goods. It is cheaper to have overwhelming power with recurring lage demonstrations thereof to having continuous little skirmishes and battles here and there. As we run down the military spending the number of clashes will increase and so will the total costs.

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

I have no objection to the amount the US spends. I am bothered by some of the countries in the list. Let me pick on Germany as an example. They don't need to spend much on defense because of all the military bases the US has there.

If the US were to pull the bases out, then Germany would have to spend more of their own money. The same goes for several other countries in the right column.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Why do we spend so much on the military?

Maybe because if we didn't our military-industrial complex would suffer, jobs would be lost....and we wouldn't have much of an economy???

It's the government's biggest public aid project.

 

[braindrain]

I think the idea that we have worldwide influence commensurate with the amount of money and effort we put in to "buying" worldwide influence is a total and complete illusion.

Economically we cut deals all over the world where manufacturers and foreign national laborers "win" and the average American man or woman "loses".

Militarily a pack of ragged savages essentially fought us to a standstill for ~15 years in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the minute we left, in defeat, they went back to business as usual, or worse.

Diplomatically we just negotiated a deal with Iran where we came out losers, if not laughing stocks.

In terms of alliances we have allies who are more influenced by how the wind is blowing than any real loyalty to us when it comes to standing with us, or more likely behind us, and even then just for show (I'm looking at you South Korea, you're welcome for your freedom and 60 years of continued defense, and thanks for sending 16 "fresh water technicians" to Iraq when we needed you most - just by way of example).

China spends about 1/5th what we do on defense and when they say jump we have to ask them how high.

We're definitely doing something wrong.

Unless you're one of the 1% who rotate between investment banks, defense contractors, the White House, Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and Foggy Bottom.

Then, if you're one of those guys, our military complex certainly makes sense.

I am sorry but no militarily, the pack of ragged savages as you called them, did not fight us to a stand still. Not even close. We took over both countries with very little lose of life on our side and pounded the crap out of them the entire time. They they lost virtually every gun fight they got into and there loses were extremely higher than ours. What happened was they as a society had the will to win while we did not. It had way more to do with politics and will than anything military


And since when do we jump when China says so. The reason we spend more then them is because they pay thier soldiers what amounts to
peanuts while in the US military payroll is the biggest expense.

It really seems like you are trying a little to hard to find things to complain about that just are not there.

 

[joG]

I have no objection to the amount the US spends. I am bothered by some of the countries in the list. Let me pick on Germany as an example. They don't need to spend much on defense because of all the military bases the US has there.

If the US were to pull the bases out, then Germany would have to spend more of their own money. The same goes for several other countries in the right column.

There is no question that countries like Germany should be spending at least double their present budget. I also do not think that it would be smart to pull out of Europe right now. The assets should not be in Germany or Belgium, however. They should be in the Eastern countries.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

The DoD budget is the largest ongoing stimulus plan in existence. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is a federal employee, with federal benefits and 20 year retirement options. Every major supplier of hardware - trucks, tanks, airplanes, ships, guns, bombs - every one is an American company, using American parts and American labor.

 

[Thoreau72]

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

We spend so much because the tail is wagging the dog, in a major way. We spend so much because we are a fascist state, and waging war(victory is not part of the equation) is our modus operandi.

We spend so much because Ike's worst nightmares have come true with a vengeance.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I suspect that a lot of it is habit and lobbyists.

After WWII we were the prominent industrialized country with an intact infra-structure.
Europe prob'ly needed us to provide the counter-weight to the USSR back then.

But now, we spend so much because we have been spending so much and it seems normal.
And because the funds we shovel into the MIC are used to lobby Congress for more funds.

Two of groups with the clout to make significant changes to military funding--the legislature and the MIC--are not rewarded for being rational about defense spending.

It's easy to find examples of projects that Congress green lights despite objections from the US military.

 

[braindrain]

We spend so much because the tail is wagging the dog, in a major way. We spend so much because we are a fascist state, and waging war(victory is not part of the equation) is our modus operandi.

We spend so much because Ike's worst nightmares have come true with a vengeance.

Well you know we need to spend that much so we can have those mini nukes that brought down the towers. I mean how awsome is that. A nuke that can take out a building and no one even knows a bomb went off. He'll even to this day only a few more perceptive CTers even know a nuke was used. Isn't that right.

 

[Thoreau72]

Well you know we need to spend that much so we can have those mini nukes that brought down the towers. I mean how awsome is that. A nuke that can take out a building and no one even knows a bomb went off. He'll even to this day only a few more perceptive CTers even know a nuke was used. Isn't that right.

People that were there KNOW that there were explosions. Some folks deny there were explosions, but they often deny any number of facts. Ignorance is bliss, whether voluntary or involuntary.

We spend so much money on the military because we are a belligerent country. We attack and invade other countries as we see fit, under false pretenses and sophistry. Ike warned of such things, the undue influence of the military industrial complex.

 

[beerftw]

I have no objection to the amount the US spends. I am bothered by some of the countries in the list. Let me pick on Germany as an example. They don't need to spend much on defense because of all the military bases the US has there.

If the US were to pull the bases out, then Germany would have to spend more of their own money. The same goes for several other countries in the right column.

on germany,they dont have a well oiled militarybecause they cant,its because they dont want to.

after ww2,even to this day,if germany or japan built up a large military again,europe and asia would tremble in its boots.they use us military influence as a means of peace and to not upset their neighbors,especially with germany after 2 world wars.

 

[beerftw]

The DoD budget is the largest ongoing stimulus plan in existence. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is a federal employee, with federal benefits and 20 year retirement options. Every major supplier of hardware - trucks, tanks, airplanes, ships, guns, bombs - every one is an American company, using American parts and American labor.

most are american companies,but all are required under law to be made in the us,this was not exclusevely to benefit the mic,but rather in time of war to ensure our own supplies were met.

for example baretta is an italian company,but all pistols are made in the us for the military.if for some reason we went to war with italy,we could take control of the plant and keep our supply moving,whereas if it was a foreign company manufacturing overseas,supply could be halted by the country or blockaded by the enemy navy.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The DoD budget is the largest ongoing stimulus plan in existence. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is a federal employee, with federal benefits and 20 year retirement options. Every major supplier of hardware - trucks, tanks, airplanes, ships, guns, bombs - every one is an American company, using American parts and American labor.

In many ways this is close.

However, it also misses the mark.

To start with, maybe 15% will ever do their 20 years and get a pension. The majority simply do their 4-6 year enlistment and return to being a civilian, getting nothing.

Then there is the pay. Because of the standard of living, the US military is one of the best paid in the world. The base pay of a recruit in boot camp is over $1,500 a month, not counting other expenses from food and medical to the cost of the training. By the end of a 4 year enlistment most are making over $2,300 a month.

Then the cost of dependents. A member of the US military can get married or have kids at whim, and the US Military is dependent on their support. From housing and schooling to medical and other expenses. And that does not come cheap at all.

To compare, your typical Chinese soldier makes around $35 a month. And he can not get married or have kids until he or she is in their second enlistment, and even then only with government approval.

In the US, a Colonel brings home in base pay around $8,000. In China, a Colonel brings home around $850.

So as you can see, this alone is a huge difference in cost. Pay and benefits.

Of course, there is the "Invisible MIC" that everybody ignores, and that is the power of the Unions. 1 in 3 employees of the DoD is a civilian, backed by huge unions interested in protecting their jobs. And as the military is cut by the tens and hundreds of thousands, this segment is largely left alone. And these are direct, government employees not contractors. We now have hundreds of thousands of jobs that the military used to do, now being done by civilians (who make a lot more money then the Privates that did it in decades past).

For some reason, every time there is a "cut the military" movement, these cuts rarely filter down to the civilian DoD employees. Where people in uniform often get RIFed and downsized, they are in protected jobs, where it is almost impossible to fire them, they are just shuffled off to another union government position with no savings at all.

I have long believed that laying off most of those DoD civilians and replacing them once again with people in uniform will result in huge savings. Soldiers do not get overtime, nor vacation pay. They work when and where required, 24 hours if need be. And since the vast majority leave without ever coming close to earning a pension, when they are gone the financial commitment to them is also gone.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In many ways this is close.

However, it also misses the mark.

To start with, maybe 15% will ever do their 20 years and get a pension. The majority simply do their 4-6 year enlistment and return to being a civilian, getting nothing.

Then there is the pay. Because of the standard of living, the US military is one of the best paid in the world. The base pay of a recruit in boot camp is over $1,500 a month, not counting other expenses from food and medical to the cost of the training. By the end of a 4 year enlistment most are making over $2,300 a month.

Then the cost of dependents. A member of the US military can get married or have kids at whim, and the US Military is dependent on their support. From housing and schooling to medical and other expenses. And that does not come cheap at all.

To compare, your typical Chinese soldier makes around $35 a month. And he can not get married or have kids until he or she is in their second enlistment, and even then only with government approval.

In the US, a Colonel brings home in base pay around $8,000. In China, a Colonel brings home around $850.

So as you can see, this alone is a huge difference in cost. Pay and benefits.

Of course, there is the "Invisible MIC" that everybody ignores, and that is the power of the Unions. 1 in 3 employees of the DoD is a civilian, backed by huge unions interested in protecting their jobs. And as the military is cut by the tens and hundreds of thousands, this segment is largely left alone. And these are direct, government employees not contractors. We now have hundreds of thousands of jobs that the military used to do, now being done by civilians (who make a lot more money then the Privates that did it in decades past).

For some reason, every time there is a "cut the military" movement, these cuts rarely filter down to the civilian DoD employees. Where people in uniform often get RIFed and downsized, they are in protected jobs, where it is almost impossible to fire them, they are just shuffled off to another union government position with no savings at all.

I have long believed that laying off most of those DoD civilians and replacing them once again with people in uniform will result in huge savings. Soldiers do not get overtime, nor vacation pay. They work when and where required, 24 hours if need be. And since the vast majority leave without ever coming close to earning a pension, when they are gone the financial commitment to them is also gone.

The use of DoD civilians (and contractors) allows (if not outright requires) spending in many states/districts which keeps these "essential" positions (and MIC firms) funded. For example, The F-35 is "made" in over 30 states - that helps to give a huge number of congress critters reason for stopping attempts at cutting back their "pork"

Flawed F-35 Too Big to Kill as Lockheed Hooks 45 States - Bloomberg Business.

This Map Explains The f-35 Fiasco - Business Insider

 

[rupertprior]

Because the ridiculous American foreign policy means that they make people angry by blowing up large areas of land in the middle east. The people flee to the Neighbouring countries, who then build little terror armies (Mini Isis') - Otherwise known as "insurgents". And then you get the American public being mislead as if these people were angered by absolutely nothing and are just difficult. Not many people just get angry at a country with no evidence or aggravation

 

[Oozlefinch]

Because the ridiculous American foreign policy means that they make people angry by blowing up large areas of land in the middle east. The people flee to the Neighbouring countries, who then build little terror armies (Mini Isis') - Otherwise known as "insurgents". And then you get the American public being mislead as if these people were angered by absolutely nothing and are just difficult. Not many people just get angry at a country with no evidence or aggravation

You mean like in Somalia, former Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, etc, etc, etc?

 

[rupertprior]

Yes, exactly the list goes on. Somalia is slightly different. Years ago their country was a fishing economy, build on the sea's resources. But the French, British, Americans and Russians fished every last fish out of the water. Now they hate us. I don't know anything about Yugoslavia. But they blew Libya to bits, it is just a pile of rubble now. I was also thinking of Afghanistan, Syria,

 

[Oozlefinch]

Yes, exactly the list goes on. Somalia is slightly different. Years ago their country was a fishing economy, build on the sea's resources. But the French, British, Americans and Russians fished every last fish out of the water. Now they hate us. I don't know anything about Yugoslavia. But they blew Libya to bits, it is just a pile of rubble now. I was also thinking of Afghanistan, Syria,

Yea, exactly like that.

As for Somalia, WTF? Does any of the blame lay on maybe Ethiopia? Which immediately after Somalia was given it's independence tried to annex the entire country? How about the attempts of Kenya to flood the border regions in an attempt to rip off another part of the country? Or the seccession of coups, revolts, and finally civil war that broke out in 1991 that left the country completely crippled for almost 2 decades (often supported by neighboring countries that exploited the border regions during this conflict)? You go on about nations fishing, never mentioning one time the internal fighting and instigation of other nations. The UN tried to step in and put the country to rest, but that all blew up as we all know.

Yugoslavia, after the country imploded it was a seccession of invasions and genocides by several of the member-states that made up the country. Most often the worst atrocities were made against the Muslim minorities. You know, the ones the evil US and NATO protected.

Libya largely blew itself to bits. By far Libyan against Libyan warfare killed more then the NATO strikes did. Or do you really think that the only people that had fighters there was NATO? And as a hint, I really do not think NATO infantry divisions and tank divisions were running around the country for over a year blowing up any "revolting" villages.

You really do not know much of any of these conflicts, I can see. I suggest you try to research into them next time, so you do not look like some kind of uninformed person when discussing topics that you yourself admit you do not know or understand.

This is the military part of the forum, most of us are very knowledgeable on the subject. Coming in throwing around political beliefs and propaganda really is frowned down upon. And many are much more brutal in their disdain of it then I am.

Welcome to Debate Politics however.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

As the country with the largest economy, it's natural for us to spend the most on our military. However, the magnitude of our military spending just astounds me:

So, can someone explain to me why we need to spend so much?

The cynical answer would be to preserve the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

But the real-world answer is, "those to whom much is given, much is expected", or "with great power comes great responsibility" (to think that last one came from a 1960's comic book...). I can understand us spending significantly more than anyone else...but I think that there are better ways to go about it, like getting rid of the single most expensive part of my Navy - the aircraft carriers that I love to this day. They are so useful, so capable, so powerful...and more vulnerable than most people realize. We need to rule cyberspace (which is why as a liberal I still support the NSA metadata program), space (does anyone really think that everyone's going to abide by the treaty against the weaponization of space?), communications, and have an ever-increasingly-capable spec-ops force (which means that at some point they're no longer really spec-ops, but regular troops with a very high degree of training).