Military spending (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

How about we divert that money for vital social services like education, infrastructure and healthcare right now since it's clearly not money that is critical for a functioning military and we'll just wait for Mexico to pay for the wall (as promised)?

I think we all know Mexico isn't paying.  Expect it to come from military.

 

[The Tick]

One issue of military spending that I think is over trivialized is the specialization of the companies that build our military hardware and the fact many of them couldn't survive a year if we simply decided we have enough of "X" and don't need to make more this year.  One example could be General Dynamic's Electric Boat.  They make submarines for the USN and that's about it.  How do you keep these facilities staffed and available and all their suppliers in business if you were to decide to put a 3 year hold on building any new subs.  It's easy to say, we have enough subs why does the dumb government keep building more, but sometimes I'm not sure there is another option.  Same could be said for companies that make jets, tanks, aircraft carriers, the list goes on.  These military industries have become so specialized from the mainstream economy because they needed to be, but once that happened, our government almost has to support them to be able to build stuff in the future.  It's an interesting problem.

Now I'm sure there is still tons of spending in the military that could be cut, and I'm not one that's arguing we need to pump more money into it in order to be safe.  I'm just brining up a point I find interesting.

 

[Politician Spock]

One issue of military spending that I think is over trivialized is the specialization of the companies that build our military hardware and the fact many of them couldn't survive a year if we simply decided we have enough of "X" and don't need to make more this year.  One example could be General Dynamic's Electric Boat.  They make submarines for the USN and that's about it.  How do you keep these facilities staffed and available and all their suppliers in business if you were to decide to put a 3 year hold on building any new subs.  It's easy to say, we have enough subs why does the dumb government keep building more, but sometimes I'm not sure there is another option.  Same could be said for companies that make jets, tanks, aircraft carriers, the list goes on.  These military industries have become so specialized from the mainstream economy because they needed to be, but once that happened, our government almost has to support them to be able to build stuff in the future.  It's an interesting problem.

Now I'm sure there is still tons of spending in the military that could be cut, and I'm not one that's arguing we need to pump more money into it in order to be safe.  I'm just brining up a point I find interesting.

Perhaps the question to be asking is not how do we keep those facilities staffed and available and all their supplies in business in case we need to go to war, but is instead are the weapons those facilities make even the weapons that are used in 21st century war... and the future.

Is 1,000 people making a submarine out of thousands of pounds of steel in 9 months as powerful as 100 people coding malware in 3 weeks? If not, then it makes perfect sense why other countries spend so much less than we do on military. We spend billions to be able to make a ton of very expensive paperweights at the drop of a hat. 

 

[urbanhack]

One issue of military spending that I think is over trivialized is the specialization of the companies that build our military hardware and the fact many of them couldn't survive a year if we simply decided we have enough of "X" and don't need to make more this year.  One example could be General Dynamic's Electric Boat.  They make submarines for the USN and that's about it.  How do you keep these facilities staffed and available and all their suppliers in business if you were to decide to put a 3 year hold on building any new subs.  It's easy to say, we have enough subs why does the dumb government keep building more, but sometimes I'm not sure there is another option.  Same could be said for companies that make jets, tanks, aircraft carriers, the list goes on.  These military industries have become so specialized from the mainstream economy because they needed to be, but once that happened, our government almost has to support them to be able to build stuff in the future.  It's an interesting problem.

Now I'm sure there is still tons of spending in the military that could be cut, and I'm not one that's arguing we need to pump more money into it in order to be safe.  I'm just brining up a point I find interesting.

This is exactly the reason we need perpetual war or military conflict.  

 

[whoknew]

One issue of military spending that I think is over trivialized is the specialization of the companies that build our military hardware and the fact many of them couldn't survive a year if we simply decided we have enough of "X" and don't need to make more this year.  One example could be General Dynamic's Electric Boat.  They make submarines for the USN and that's about it.  How do you keep these facilities staffed and available and all their suppliers in business if you were to decide to put a 3 year hold on building any new subs.  It's easy to say, we have enough subs why does the dumb government keep building more, but sometimes I'm not sure there is another option.  Same could be said for companies that make jets, tanks, aircraft carriers, the list goes on.  These military industries have become so specialized from the mainstream economy because they needed to be, but once that happened, our government almost has to support them to be able to build stuff in the future.  It's an interesting problem.

Now I'm sure there is still tons of spending in the military that could be cut, and I'm not one that's arguing we need to pump more money into it in order to be safe.  I'm just brining up a point I find interesting.

Its not a good argument that we should keep spending money inefficiently because it keeps people in jobs. If that were the case, the government would still be buying those Snoopy red baron airplanes. That money is better spent somewhere else. Potentially by someone else (i.e, by lowering taxes).

I'm not saying you (I've no idea what your political leanings are) - but this is an argument where the GOP has completely betrayed its conservative roots. They would never argue for unnecessary government spending in any other area but the military.

 

[technicaldifficulties]

Its not a good argument that we should keep spending money inefficiently because it keeps people in jobs. If that were the case, the government would still be buying those Snoopy red baron airplanes. That money is better spent somewhere else. Potentially by someone else (i.e, by lowering taxes).

I'm not saying you (I've no idea what your political leanings are) - but this is an argument where the GOP has completely betrayed its conservative roots. They would never argue for unnecessary government spending in any other area but the military.

Farm subsidies. Sugar would be  a lot cheaper if we got it from Cuba 

 

[-OZ-]

Yes.  How many people are employed and are invested in companies that depend on military contracts?

Thank you. It's good to see people see the real issue.

We don't know because Congress won't let the DoD do the research. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/close-old-military-bases-follow-pentagon-advice/

Yep. When the DoD wants to close or downsize an installation it gets fought by the politicians whose districts rely on the installations, contractors, etc. 

special interests, lobbying, corporate corruption, corporate welfare, etc. etc. 

Contracting is a way to keep their people in business.

Its not a good argument that we should keep spending money inefficiently because it keeps people in jobs. If that were the case, the government would still be buying those Snoopy red baron airplanes. That money is better spent somewhere else. Potentially by someone else (i.e, by lowering taxes).

I'm not saying you (I've no idea what your political leanings are) - but this is an argument where the GOP has completely betrayed its conservative roots. They would never argue for unnecessary government spending in any other area but the military.

Why do you think that is? 

I'm guessing it's because it's the area with the most money and direct federal impact across the greatest number of districts with influence.  While social programs have a greater share of the budget, they aren't really touchable either. 

 

[The Tick]

Its not a good argument that we should keep spending money inefficiently because it keeps people in jobs. If that were the case, the government would still be buying those Snoopy red baron airplanes. That money is better spent somewhere else. Potentially by someone else (i.e, by lowering taxes).

I'm not saying you (I've no idea what your political leanings are) - but this is an argument where the GOP has completely betrayed its conservative roots. They would never argue for unnecessary government spending in any other area but the military.

It's nothing to do with keeping people in jobs for me, it's keeping the strategic ability to be able to build those machines.  I don't think you can just mothball those facilities and staff for a couple years, and then think you can start it up again.  To Politician Spock's point, I think we still require those large scale weapons, even as warfare is evolving we are not done with those.  Do we have enough for today?  Tomorrow? 10 years from now?  Those are all valid questions.  When they are determined to be obsolete, fine kill the project off that's fine.

I do hate the argument that was pushed in the presidential debates by one side that our military has become to weak, and "our Navy is at the smallest size since WWII", I think that's a fully dishonest misleading argument, so i'm not saying we need to spend more, just saying that there are some counter arguments to the crowd of why do we need another "X" today.

I'm sure there are 10's if not 100's of billions that could be taken out of our current military budget and be moved to both more relevant military projects, cyber, SPACE FORCE, or what not (completely kidding about the space force), or civilian projects (my personal preference would be primary education with some infrastructure thrown in).

 

[Max Power]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-thinking-closing-110-million-205659858.html
 

The Pentagon is thinking about closing a $110 million drone base it just opened to focus on Russia and China

The US military is reassessing its operations as part of a shift toward competition with so-called great powers, like Russia and China.

The Pentagon has been focusing on Africa, where US officials want to pull back, including shuttering a drone base that just opened.

As part of a worldwide shift toward the possibility of confrontation with Russia and China, the Pentagon is weighing a drawdown in Africa — including "abandoning" a $110 million base in Niger that began operating only in November, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The decision is part of an effort to reorient toward so-called great-power competition, outlined in the 2018 National Defense Strategy. A determination on US forces in Africa is expected in January, according to The Times.

The effort could eventually affect most US military operations around the world, including expected drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan and an "overhaul" of US deployments to Latin America.

...

Working with the drone community I can tell you there has been excitement about the logistical location of this base for years.  There are pros and cons to closing this base, but that headline isn't going to sit well with some people. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-thinking-closing-110-million-205659858.html
 

Working with the drone community I can tell you there has been excitement about the logistical location of this base for years.  There are pros and cons to closing this base, but that headline isn't going to sit well with some people. 

Can you elaborate a little?  I don’t know anything about this issue at all.  I’m generally disposed towards much less overall military spending but I don’t really feel knowledgeable enough to know if this particular move would be good or bad.

ETA: Before reading the yahoo article I had no idea that people from Niger were  Nigeriens.  That’s not confusing at all.

 

[Max Power]

Can you elaborate a little?  I don’t know anything about this issue at all.  I’m generally disposed towards much less overall military spending but I don’t really feel knowledgeable enough to know if this particular move would be good or bad.

The US has had a presence to fight the war on terror in Africa for for the last 20 years or so. At the beginning it focused solely on Eastern Africa and the Somali region mainly. This was due to it being a bad area and we had an established base in Djibouti to operate out of. 

Following the fall of Gaddafi and emergence of terror groups in Libya, we begin to combat the groups operating in Libya and northern Africa.  We had to launch our surveillance aircraft from a safe location, which is a NATO ally, but it had restrictions, like no ordinance on the aircraft and it came with longer transit times.

After Benghazi we ramped up in Libya and we realized that a lot of the core problems with terrorism was coming from central and western Africa. Drones and manned aircraft could not reach those locations from the places they were taking off from and we couldn't effective fight the enemy otherwise. That pushed our desire to expand to Niger.

Right now our boots on ground operations are limited to "advise and assist" ops.  Basically its a handful of US personnel that train large groups of that countries forces and then stand back during operations to advise.

This drone base is huge for the region because it offers a larger area of surveillance, protection and strike options.  Our guys can go out on missions with overhead support.  This is huge.  The drones also offer a lot of additional intelligence capabilities. 

Boko Haram is one of the most violent terrorist organizations remaining and very large in numbers.  The reason you never hear about us fighting them is that we couldn't effective reach out to develop the intelligence and conduct operations.  This base allows the US to do that.

Bottom line is that its a goal we have be working towards for years and we're finally on the doorstep, however, Boko Haram is not a global threat.  They are regional and in a region without a lot of US interests. 

So the call really boils down to do we continue with this line of effort or do we pull back and focus on the emerging threats that are much more likely to impact American interests?  I don't see this as an issue of "less spending" just where we are going to spend the current budget. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

@Max Power -  that was really informative, thanks.