-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Mitt Romney - thoughts?
- Thread starter shutout39
- Start date
Is the argument we should cut defense spending to pay for the wars, or that we should scale back the wars to pay for defense? Or both? Either way, good to know these "unfunded wars," which according to certain factions have been the source of the nations financial problems, are actually responsible for less than 10% of the national debt.
While you may have a good idea, that's an awfully dangerous line of thinking because it allows someone to define the "NEED." Especially when that someone can give more "free" stuff out with that money and not be held responsible when it comes back to haunt us. Threats by their very nature are speculative. Why do we "NEED" a conventional defense force today other than playing "world police" and "nation building"? Are Canada and Mexico ready to invade? Are the Chinese going to float 20 million men across the Pacific? We certainly don't "NEED" to be in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Lets pull back our fleet and scrap it. Just keep a few ICBM's online and call it a day. That logic sounds awfully familiar to another once great empire...
While those are clearly terrible ideas, that's the logic you open yourself up to when allowing defense to become based solely on your current "need." This isn't the 18th century when we have months if not years to build a fleet and raise an army when there's impending hostilities. It's necessary to have a certain level of excess to prepare for all eventualities.
I never suggested that, but ever heard of WWII? Certainly there were other factors, but worldwide it was the biggest and arguably most successful "stimulus" ever.
I'm not making those arguments. I'm merely refuting your assertion that overall military spending hasn't gone up as a result of GWOT - an assertion, which as you now know, was based on an incomplete understanding of how the process works.
Brett
I was acknowledging incomplete data, but my point still stands.
GDP from 2001-2011≈ 130T (126.7)
CR's to fund the GWOT 2001-2011≈ 1.3T (1.283)
Average per year= Additional 1% of GDP spent on GWOT
Tack that one percentage point onto the GDP vs. defense spending graph from 2001-2011 and it still remains equal to or below everything but the Clinton era.
I think you misunderstand your own figures. It's true that the CRs amount to a 1% increase in terms of GDP, but since the regular DoD budget has been between 3-4% between 2001-2010, that additional 1% from the CRs means a total of 4-5%. That is a 20-25% increase in total DoD spending as a function of GDP - a significant increase any way you look at it. Making comparisons to the Clinton era is meaningless, because the entire issue being discussed here is the cost of GWOT.
Brett
Brett
How could we ever live without freeze dried ice cream, or TANG!
But really. . .
That's a great point, though, throughout history, wars and defense research and technology have had a direct impact on how we live our every day lives.
So, instead of building defense for a certain requirement, we're supposed to just spend money until we meet a certain percentage of GDP? The contractors will definitely love that one.
If our requirement is to put out small brushfire contingencies on short notice anywhere in the world, then we need to build a force for that. If we think we need to repel a major conventional force, then we need to plan for that. Planning for everything is a recipe for disaster.
We NEED to defend our citizens. We NEED to be able to defend trade routes. We NEED to be able to respond to crises. The other stuff is WANTS. When we are in dire straits such as the times we live in now, spending billions of dollars on defense capabilities we don't need is actually counterproductive to our national security.
I don't know what other empire you're referring to. The USSR? The reason they went bust is because they had too small of an economy to support the defense infrastructure they were trying to maintain. They're finally back on the scene BECAUSE their economy is back on its feet and they are better able to field a military in line with their national goals. The British and French fell from prominence partially due to the dead weight of colonial obligations on stagnant economies crushed by WWII.
If military spending in WWII was the cause of prosperity, then the Keynesians are indeed right. We could build factories to build whatever we want and it would stimulate the economy. A weapons system or a man under arms is only valuable insofar as it helps defend against a valid threat. Define our real threats and America should and must defend against them. One pistol more than what's required to defeat that threat is a waste of resources.
A great pinko commie once said:
Who was that guy? He must have been some weak-kneed, anti-American pussy.
If you want technological advances, then spend money on technological advances, not something else that could potentially produce them as a fringe benefit. Finding new ways to kill people is a powerful incentive for technological progress--that's why wars spur technology. If you already have resolved to make that progress without killing people, why use that excuse? If anything, the military is now trailing the civilian sector and is trying to incorporate OTS systems, vice the other way around. We beg for iPad approach plates to use in our NEW aircraft that use 8-bit processors.
Historically thats been dead on. Copper, then bronze, then iron then steel, the coputer industry etc.
However in the past 20 years in the tech sector that has been completely turned upside down. Right now the civilian tech sector is feeding the defense tech.
So not really disagree with you HAL but simply pointing out there are significant exceptions.
Do we want to maintain a "capabilities based" defense or a "threat based" strategy.
In a threat based design, you build what you need to defeat a peer rival. For capabilities based, you build the best stuff imaginable.
Since our 400 pound brains have an economy that allows them to bring some pretty cool technology to the battlefield we have some amazing capability.
So do we want to continue to have a large quantity of cutting edge technology in all our services or is it time to go with a High/Low mix.
One proposal I read once was that the Navy and Marine Corps did NOT need cutting edge technology, they need a threat based capability. (for example no stealth since the Navy and Corps would be involved in more presence and quick strike type operations) The Army and Air Force, which are needed for long duration operations would get higher end gear.
My opinion is DOD needs to determine what capabilities it really NEEDS not just what it WANTS. Only then can we get a balanced force that recognizes the fiscal realities in today's economy
In a threat based design, you build what you need to defeat a peer rival. For capabilities based, you build the best stuff imaginable.
Since our 400 pound brains have an economy that allows them to bring some pretty cool technology to the battlefield we have some amazing capability.
So do we want to continue to have a large quantity of cutting edge technology in all our services or is it time to go with a High/Low mix.
One proposal I read once was that the Navy and Marine Corps did NOT need cutting edge technology, they need a threat based capability. (for example no stealth since the Navy and Corps would be involved in more presence and quick strike type operations) The Army and Air Force, which are needed for long duration operations would get higher end gear.
My opinion is DOD needs to determine what capabilities it really NEEDS not just what it WANTS. Only then can we get a balanced force that recognizes the fiscal realities in today's economy
True, but how much of that do you think is due to failures of the procurement/acquisition process? We aren't exactly good at leveraging or rapidly adapting to new technology. In other words, I'm saying the pace of technological advances has outstripped our system's ability to keep up...which is why you're stuck using electronics from the 1970's in some cases. Or why mil-spec GPS units have far less capability than COTS units from Garmin.
Not only this, but to speak to Lumpy's point about threat vs capabilities, our basic acquisition process typically has a timeline that spans the ups and downs of the business cycle so that we might set in motion the development of a new system with amazing advanced capabilities during good financial times, but by the time it comes to purchase it when the technology is mature, we may be in recessionary times. This could lead us to lose economy of scale advantages if we decide we can't afford enough of them, or worse yet, lead to project cancellation and waste of money already invested. There have got to be ways to shorten this acquisition timeline. If the private technology sector can succeed at this, we should at least make some strides towards that goal. I have no doubt that it has a whole lot to do with the military-industrial complex sucking at the government's teat.
Brett
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the military-industrial complex! The reason the military spurs technological advances is not due to any inherent advantage, but because defense provides a practical incentive to devote resources. If you provide an alternative strong incentive, good research will emerge in another sector.