Cut Defense spending to cut the deficit?

[Thunder]

How much money would we save if we ended our Cold War commitments in Germany and Japan?

I have to assume we soend billions to keep all of our soldiers in these two countries.

And since there is NEVER going to be a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, I think its safe to say we can significantly reduce our troop levels in Europe.

And as far as protecting Japan from a Soviet or Chinese invasion/attack..is that really plausible anymore?

I think our defensive postures have become soo very entrenched...that we may simply not know how to get out of them.

But you know what? We don't need to defend these place anymore.

I bet we could save a good $50 billion a year by reducing our European and East Asian commitments.

Come on all your fiscal Conservatives, back me up!!

Who is with me?????????!!!!!!

:)

"As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners."[35] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-34)

[MattusMaximus]

Makes sense to me.

If these deficit hawks are really serious, they'll be looking to cut military spending by a decent chunk.

That would save money and put paid to one of the largest socialist programs EVER!!! :jaw-dropp

[/sarc]

[Cain]

"Defense spending," that's rich. Can we at least call it "military spending"?

[MattusMaximus]

"Defense spending," that's rich. Can we at least call it "military spending"?

Already did...

Makes sense to me.

If these deficit hawks are really serious, they'll be looking to cut military spending by a decent chunk.

That would save money and put paid to one of the largest socialist programs EVER!!! :jaw-dropp

[/sarc]

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I believe Rumsfeld, back in 2004, said we could save $12 billion if we closed 200-300 of the 835 bases the pentagon claims we have overseas. That isn't a significant enough amount that we could make any serious headway into our national deficit. The only perceivable way I could see dealing with our deficit problems is to make a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

[willhaven]

Cut it back to the bare minimum.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Cut it back to the bare minimum.

Slingshots and paper airplanes it is.

[MikeMangum]

How much money would we save if we ended our Cold War commitments in Germany and Japan?

I have to assume we soend billions to keep all of our soldiers in these two countries.

And since there is NEVER going to be a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, I think its safe to say we can significantly reduce our troop levels in Europe.

And as far as protecting Japan from a Soviet or Chinese invasion/attack..is that really plausible anymore?

I think our defensive postures have become soo very entrenched...that we may simply not know how to get out of them.

But you know what? We don't need to defend these place anymore.

I bet we could save a good $50 billion a year by reducing our European and East Asian commitments.

Come on all your fiscal Conservatives, back me up!!

Who is with me?????????!!!!!!

:)

"As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners."[35] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-34)

The entire defense budget for 2009: $533.8 billion
Federal deficit for 2009: $1.4 trillion

BTW, that's an interesting method of measuring naval capabilities: by tonnage. I could have sworn that battleships were demonstrated to be obsolete during WWII.

[Cain]

Already did...

Yeah, I just glazed over your post, probably a force of habit. I'm kidding. Sort of.

MikeMagnum (great name) sez:

The entire defense budget for 2009: $533.8 billion

Well, that depends on your accounting. The good people at the War Resisters League probably post the higher estimates (with current military spending at "653 billion", but the main point is that an extra one, two, three hundred billion dollars a year adds up over time with interest.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

[technoextreme]

"Defense spending," that's rich. Can we at least call it "military spending"?
Calling all of that money military spending is stupid also.

[Lurker]

I agree with a rescaling of our military. Bases in Japan and Germany just don't make much sense any more. We need to maintain ability to project power into the Middle East so keep bases that can do that.

Even if closing bases does not save money compared to our deficit it still helps. No one solution will proffer itself.

[Darth Rotor]

How much money would we save if we ended our Cold War commitments in Germany and Japan?
Why do you think what we are doing in Germany and Japan, now, is a Cold War commitment? The perceptual error you make as an assumption leads you to idiotic conclusions.

The Cold War foot print is already significantly reduced. The US reduced the armed forces in Europe from more than two full up Army corps (and a huge HQ and C2 overlay on that) to a couple of divisions (-) over a period of ten years. The Six Hundred Ship Navy of Lehman's years, (actually 580 something) is well below three hundred, and quite possibly shrinking beyond that. We shall see what the UAV development does to power projection in the next decade or so.

I'll argue we could probably reduce that footprint further, and have argued so more than once when I was on a staff that worked on such matters. I would need to do a bit more checking, but there are probably a few more reductions on the table, shut downs, that need some political grease to complete. Been out of touch for a while on the gory details. FWIW: a number of US bases in Europe have become dual use/NATO facilities since the wall came down, I worked on a few projects in Greece and Spain in the 1990's related to that subtle change.

Due to the practical political considerations based on the continuance of the TransAtlantic Alliance, a non-trivial minimum of bases, training facilities, C2 backbone, and basing rights (air and sea) in Europe, not just Germany, is a sensible position.

While I have been a "bring the boys home from Germany" grinder for about fifteen years now, I don't ignore, as you do, the political ties that bind us to Europe. Collective security is part of that. For all the carping we do back and forth across the pond, we still have a lot of political interests in common.

We could completely pull all combat forces out of Northern Europe IFF the political arm of our government, and allied governments, wished to assume greater risk. At present, they do not wish to, but I think your presumption of Russia as the problem is a twenty year old picture you've chosen not to update.

Note: Logistically, if we continue to be present in Africa and or the Middle East, you can't shut down the logistic links in Europe. Won't work. ( For Lurker, I don't know if that answers your question.)
I have to assume we soend billions to keep all of our soldiers in these two countries.
You know nothing, but your guess is within the right order of magnitude.
And since there is NEVER going to be a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, I think its safe to say we can significantly reduce our troop levels in Europe.
We already did. Massive reduction. That's part of how the Seventh Corps ended up in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991.
And as far as protecting Japan from a Soviet or Chinese invasion/attack..is that really plausible anymore?
You make an error in assuming that is why we have forward based air and Naval forces in Japan. Korea is part of the reason ....
What I do see happening is that we, for political reasons that benefit Japan and us, in the long run, move out of Okinawa. Should have happened a while back, IMO, but this sort of thing takes time.
I think our defensive postures have become soo very entrenched...that we may simply not know how to get out of them.
Since you willfully ignorant, it doesn't matter what you think.
But you know what? We don't need to defend these place anymore.
Governments in the US and the places where we have forward deployed forces disagree with you. This is a two way deal, not a one way deal. Note, we are OUT of the Philippines (in terms of basing), have been since about 1991/1992. We reduced our footprint in Korea while Rummy was Sec Def. I'll argue we can further reduce there soon, pending Seoul/Pyongyang relations stabilizing a bit.
I bet we could save a good $50 billion a year by reducing our European and East Asian commitments.
We might, and in time I hope we do, but the shared political risk of doing so, at present, is unpalatable.
Come on all your fiscal Conservatives, back me up!!

Who is with me?????????!!!!!!
Who would follow an idiot?

Another point on defense/security/military spending: the current numbers are somewhat inflated due to two different wars/major contingency operations being on going ... for seven and nine years respectively. As Iraq spools down in the next two years, assuming President Obama's plans remain intact for that, you'll see the defense authorizations necessary for that sucking chest wound decrease. Likewise in the longer term for Afghanistan.

I have hopes that the defense budget will fall towards 420-440 billion in near to mid term as that happens. Maybe further.

DR

[Lurker]

Thanks DR, for the info on the European bases. It sounds like they have already been scaled back quite a bit and if they are indeed providing logisitical support to our efforts in the Middle East and African then we had best keep them.

As an aside, I saw a base close in my hometown. It was hard at first but eventually the city was able to roll with the change.

[Thunder]

While I have been a "bring the boys home from Germany" grinder for about fifteen years now, I don't ignore, as you do, the political ties that bind us to Europe. Collective security is part of that.

to protect us..against whom?

who is this great and powerful enemy we have to help Europe be protected from?

Al Qaeda? Hezbollah?

BS.

[Thunder]

Slingshots and paper airplanes it is.

ah, yes. wanting to scale back America's military presence in Europe and Asia is tantamount to wanting to reduce our defense capabilities to slingshots and paper airplanes.

very good.

[Darth Rotor]

to protect us..against whom?

who is this great and powerful enemy we have to help Europe be protected from?

Al Qaeda? Hezbollah?

BS.
Note the BS in your bolded part, will you please?

Were you another poster, I might bother expanding on what collective security is. Edited for Civility.
DR

Remember to be civil and to address the argument.

[dudalb]

Parky had demonstarted on past occasions that he is not knowledgable about military affairs.

[dudalb]

Cut it back to the bare minimum.

Define Bare Minimum.
Probably next to nothing, considering that in other posts you have indicated a real isolationist viewpoint.

[Darth Rotor]

Parky had demonstarted on past occasions that he is not knowledgable about military affairs.

That's not important, I am not knowledgable on neurosurgery. But I'm interested in learning.

DR

[ingoa]

As a German I feel (anecdote) that most of the American bases are already abandoned.
Almost all bases I ever visited are closed now.

[Darth Rotor]

As a German I feel (anecdote) that most of the American bases are already abandoned.
Almost all bases I ever visited are closed now.
I thought I had posted a link to the bases. Hmm.

The EUCOM major formations are:

2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment
12th Combat Aviation Brigade
170th Infantry Brigade
172nd Infantry Brigade
173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (Vicenza, Italy)

I think the other four brigades are based in Germany. So the US is at roughly one Division (+) rather than two Divisions (-) in Germany.
http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/institution/default.htm
There are thirteen Garrisons in Germany, three in the Benelux area, and two (Livorno and Vicenza) in Italy. Click on Garrisons (about halfway down the page, in the middle) and select the country/area to see where the open bases are.

If you look at the Seventh Army and USAREUR web sites, you note that a lot of organizations are logistic and HQ/C2, not combat formations. These units are aligned consistent with the forward deployed NATO strategy of doing out of area/non Article V operations that the alliance agreed on in 1995, with the NATO deployment to Bosnia, and elsewhere, to include Afghanistan today.

NATO doesn't just defend. In the words of Kembai Shimada ...

"If we only defend, we lose the war." ;)

DR

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Calling all of that money military spending is stupid also.

Agreed, Defense spending also includes non-military organizations responsible for homeland security. That's why it's called defense spending.

[Newtons Bit]

The entire defense budget for 2009: $533.8 billion
Federal deficit for 2009: $1.4 trillion

BTW, that's an interesting method of measuring naval capabilities: by tonnage. I could have sworn that battleships were demonstrated to be obsolete during WWII.

And our modern aircraft carriers are over twice as heavy as our WW2 battleships. And I would wager that they're at least a 1000 times more powerful even without nuclear armament.

[Darth Rotor]

And our modern aircraft carriers are over twice as heavy as our WW2 battleships. And I would wager that they're at least a 1000 times more powerful even without nuclear armament.
And greener, with nuclear power ... though all that JP-5 for the jets is the flip side of the coin.
BTW, that's an interesting method of measuring naval capabilities: by tonnage. I could have sworn that battleships were demonstrated to be obsolete during WWII.
USS New Jersey: Naval Gunfire in Viet Nam (60's)
USS New Jersey: Naval Gunfire Lebanon (early 80s')
USS Missouri: Operation Desert Storm

Not obsolete, but still manpower intensive, which is why the 1991-1995 defense reviews eventually let them go. You can man 4-5 DDG-51's for each BB. I was so sad to see them go. Got to land on the Missouri a few times. Happy was I ...

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

ah, yes. wanting to scale back America's military presence in Europe and Asia is tantamount to wanting to reduce our defense capabilities to slingshots and paper airplanes.

very good.

That's not what I said parky. It was a sarcastic reply to the comment made by willhaven.

Cut it back to the bare minimum.

Slingshots and paper airplanes would be the bare minimun afterall. You can even see the quote in my post. Of course, I don't actually agree with closing down all these bases for one thing. It doesn't seem to me like we'd actually save much money.

[Thunder]

Parky had demonstarted on past occasions that he is not knowledgable about military affairs.

:) funny stuff.

[technoextreme]

Agreed, Defense spending also includes non-military organizations responsible for homeland security. That's why it's called defense spending.
Well I was referring to the fact that my funding for graduate school comes from the defense department despite the fact that you wouldn't even begin to guess what I'm researching. It technically does have a firm fitting in defense research but its the last thing you would think of when I would say what it was.

[Darth Rotor]

Well I was referring to the fact that my funding for graduate school comes from the defense department despite the fact that you wouldn't even begin to guess what I'm researching. It technically does have a firm fitting in defense research but its the last thing you would think of when I would say what it was.

You are among friends here. It's OK to admit that you are doing a detailed study of the effects of massive inflictions of porn on young men at remote outposts ... :D

[tyr_13]

I think that there must be some parts of defense, war, military, whatever spending that could, and should, be cut. Saying it shouldn't be done because it isn't enough to impact the deficit in a large way is just a silly premise as it is never going to be one solution to that, but it can help.

Anyway, I'm more concerned about misdirected and wasteful spending in the military. A lot of good research projects get shafted for political reasons for example. We can also get a lot more 'bang for the buck' on certain tech, training, and weapons than on others. However, how does one tell a good investment from a bad one? It's incredibly complicated, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

[dudalb]

I agree there is stuff in the Military budget that could and should be cut.
SDI for instance. Time that boondoggle was ended.
My concern is some people want basically want to slash the military budget to the point where The US could no longer intervene..no many what the circumstances...overseas. It's just a mask for Ron Paul style "Non Interventionist Foreign Policy" which amounts to Isolationism..the idea that if we ignore the rest of the world, it will go away.

[tyr_13]

I agree there is stuff in the Military budget that could and should be cut.
SDI for instance. Time that boondoggle was ended.
My concern is some people want basically want to slash the military budget to the point where The US could no longer intervene..no many what the circumstances...overseas. It's just a mask for Ron Paul style "Non Interventionist Foreign Policy" which amounts to Isolationism..the idea that if we ignore the rest of the world, it will go away.

I've also heard the, in my view, overly optimistic opinion that the US cutting back on it's role as de-facto world police would result in other countries stepping up to fill the gap, and uniting the global community at the same time as scaling back animosity toward the US.

It may have a hit of truth, but is completely naive taken as a whole.

[MikeMangum]

Well, that depends on your accounting. The good people at the War Resisters League probably post the higher estimates (with current military spending at "653 billion", but the main point is that an extra one, two, three hundred billion dollars a year adds up over time with interest.

My point was not that there can't be savings in the defense budget, it was that the size of the deficit utterly dwarfs any savings that can be found from cutting defense. Other cuts are needed.

[dudalb]

The War Resisters League think that war in ANY circumstance is wrong. Good thing they were not in power in the 1930's.
I admit that I have a low intellectual opinion of absolute pacifists.
And, like most hard core ideologues, they are willing to lie and distort to promote their views.

[Darth Rotor]

I've also heard the, in my view, overly optimistic opinion that the US cutting back on it's role as de-facto world police would result in other countries stepping up to fill the gap, and uniting the global community at the same time as scaling back animosity toward the US.

It may have a hit of truth, but is completely naive taken as a whole.
I offer you the UN mission in Somalia as evidence of what happens when the US steps back.

I offer you the moronic, dual-key UN crap in Bosnia as evidence of what happens, when the US steps back.

On the other hand, I admire the tenacity of the African Union's attempts in Sudan/Darfur, bloody difficult that is.

DR

[dudalb]

Truth is, Isolationism, the idea that the US should not get involved with any foreign countries and should, except for "trade" (ie, except when we can make a buck) simply ignore the world outside our borders (except for maybe Canada and Mexico) has always had an appeal in the US, on both the left and the right. It is most recently going under the name on "Non Interventionism" and it's most vocal advocate is Ron Paul.
IMHO, common sense dictates that it is equally stupid for the US to Intervene at the drop of a hat, or to NEVER intervene no matter what is at stake.
And I might argue that a large US economic presence overseas is going to be seen by many overseas as US Imperialism, even if the US Government is not involved.
The point is a lot of those who want to cut defense spending "to the bone" really want to cut defense spending to the point where US Military invention is just plain impossible.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Well I was referring to the fact that my funding for graduate school comes from the defense department despite the fact that you wouldn't even begin to guess what I'm researching. It technically does have a firm fitting in defense research but its the last thing you would think of when I would say what it was.

Well, there's that too! :o

[tyr_13]

I offer you the UN mission in Somalia as evidence of what happens when the US steps back.

I offer you the moronic, dual-key UN crap in Bosnia as evidence of what happens, when the US steps back.

On the other hand, I admire the tenacity of the African Union's attempts in Sudan/Darfur, bloody difficult that is.

DR

Oh I agree. It would be, in my view, a very bad thing for the US to withdraw totally, or even to a large extent. Like most people, I think the US should pull back from some things, and get move involved, or differently involved in others. But who gets to say which is which? Thus we get to have fun arguments!

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree that not having permanent, military presence in other countries is Isolationist. I don't think we need to have bases in other countries. If we have one or two bases in each region, instead of the many, many bases we have now, we can save money and still be able to help allies that need it.

[Praktik]

I've wondered about this and one thing that comes to mind is just how much structural adjustment would it take for the US to seriously cut its military expenditures?

How many towns rely on building weapons systems that may or may not add to America's security?

How many jobs in those towns depend on the weapons workers (food, services, entertainment, etc)?

Seems to me there's an entire - oh what should I call it - MIC underneath that spending which would be very painful to actually reduce significantly, so realistically speaking in this economic downturn how can make-work jobs from graft be taken away and other seemingly obvious places to cut be cut?

You need places to put those workers and spaces are limited now so I'm thinking while the budget pressures make people think more about cutting defense another way of looking at it is a giant government job/welfare system - cutting away that support now might be foolish. Seems to me the best time would be in an age of surplus, good GDP growth, employment growth and in something of a "peace dividend" once the War on Terror finally makes itself redundant - which I don't see happening anytime soon.

[MikeMangum]

Well I was referring to the fact that my funding for graduate school comes from the defense department despite the fact that you wouldn't even begin to guess what I'm researching. It technically does have a firm fitting in defense research but its the last thing you would think of when I would say what it was.

And on that note, the DOD provides funding for (what I consider to be) very important research like Polywell fusion.

ETA: which ties into this:
I agree there is stuff in the Military budget that could and should be cut.
SDI for instance. Time that boondoggle was ended.

I don't know. My understanding is that there has been alot of progress on anti-missile defense. The Navy shot down a satellite, which travels faster than an ICBM. It was a one-off deal where they had plenty of time to prepare for it, but it still shows that there is promise and that the underlying interceptor hardware works. Whether the detection, control systems, and software are up to handling multiple incoming targets with little or no notice with a high degree of confidence is another story, but that doesn't mean missile defense research is a waste of money. I would imagine that credible protection from nuclear missile attack is worth more than alot of other defense spending. Missile defense research has also had alot of secondary benefits in terms of applicability to other things.

Strategic_Defense_Initiative
Space-related defense research and testing remains heavily-budgeted to this day, irrespective of the program names, operative/reporting organizations, politics, or reports to the contrary in the press.[citation needed] Although it is difficult to compile actual spending totals across the complete spectrum of space-based defense programs (including classified "off-budget" "black projects"), the U.S. has certainly invested well over $100 billion on "SDI" and follow-on programs, and holds a commanding lead over all current or potential future adversaries in the realm of space technology/warfare.

The vast majority of this investment has been made in basic research at national laboratories and universities, and these programs continue to be a key source of funding for top research scientists in the fields of high-energy physics, supercomputing/computation, advanced materials, and many other critical science and engineering disciplines: funding which indirectly supports other research work by top scientists, and which would be largely unavailable outside of the defense budget environment.

Granted, $100 billion is enough to cover the purchase and operational costs of around 10 Nimitz class carriers for roughly 40 years (except personnel costs), so it is not a small chunk of change.

[Praktik]

The War Resisters League think that war in ANY circumstance is wrong. Good thing they were not in power in the 1930's.
I admit that I have a low intellectual opinion of absolute pacifists.
And, like most hard core ideologues, they are willing to lie and distort to promote their views.

I disagree. I think many hard-core ideologues - the preponderance in fact - truly believe what they're saying. In the same manner as 9/11 CTers, their mind has filtered their worldview to the point where their "facts" are in fact true, in their distorted world only perhaps.

The two things I think that make absolute pacifists most glaringly incorrect are their near religious faith in the underlying goodness of mankind and a belief that the degree of international cooperation required to enact a pacifist world is actually achievable.

This of course takes us back to age old philosophical debates about the fundamental nature of man. Hobbes and Locke and all that.

Anyway, if an absolute pacifist truly believes those two things there will certainly be a rather large rift between them and most other people - one so large that people on the other side may slip and explain the difference through a conscious will to deceive. Most of the time, it has more to do with incompatible worldviews.

[thaiboxerken]

Praktik, I agree. I think much of the military budget is a form of welfare to corporations, as well as a job stimulus.

[WildCat]

I don't agree that not having permanent, military presence in other countries is Isolationist. I don't think we need to have bases in other countries. If we have one or two bases in each region, instead of the many, many bases we have now, we can save money and still be able to help allies that need it.
Yes, let's put all our assets in one or 2 places... what could possibly go wrong?

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, let's put all our assets in one or 2 places... what could possibly go wrong?

Ooh, can we put all of our Battleships in a Row?

[Thunder]

yes. if we put all of our battleships in one or two places, we might get attacked by the vast Japanese airforce.

Tora...Tora...Tora!!!!!!

or maybe...the Wehrmacht will attack!!!

Blut und Eisen!!!!!

[technoextreme]

I've wondered about this and one thing that comes to mind is just how much structural adjustment would it take for the US to seriously cut its military expenditures?

It would probably collapse the entire economy and probably would remove a significant amount of funding that would prevent us from getting screwed over on another oil issue.

Seems to me there's an entire - oh what should I call it - MIC underneath that spending which would be very painful to actually reduce significantly, so realistically speaking in this economic downturn how can make-work jobs from graft be taken away and other seemingly obvious places to cut be cut?

Seems to me that there is an entire-oh what should I call it- paranoid conspiracy minded people that thinks that the army only spends on weapons of war. The more I think of it the science side of the army probably rivals the MIC.
yes. if we put all of our battleships in one or two places, we might get attacked by the vast Japanese airforce.

Tora...Tora...Tora!!!!!!

or maybe...the Wehrmacht will attack!!!

Blut und Eisen!!!!!
Or you know a nuclear bomb. Darth Robot is right.

[Praktik]

Seems to me that there is an entire-oh what should I call it- paranoid conspiracy minded people that thinks that the army only spends on weapons of war. The more I think of it the science side of the army probably rivals the MIC.

Oh - don't those people just make your blood boil??

;)

[rwguinn]

It would probably collapse the entire economy and probably would remove a significant amount of funding that would prevent us from getting screwed over on another oil issue.

Seems to me that there is an entire-oh what should I call it- paranoid conspiracy minded people that thinks that the army only spends on weapons of war. The more I think of it the science side of the army probably rivals the MIC.

Or you know a nuclear bomb. Darth Robot is right.

Oh - don't those people just make your blood boil??

;)
Considering that nearly all of the R&D going on today is associated with either NASA or the Military (No instant gratification for industry to do it), Technological advance would crater pretty quickly. I know for a fact that technology-dependent industries (Computer programming is not, IMO, "technology" per se) have/are not bringing on any bodies in the R&D areas for the last year, and in fact are generally the last to recover from Washington's manipulations...

[Darth Rotor]

I don't agree that not having permanent, military presence in other countries is Isolationist.
A fair statement. During the 90's, there was a huge push for "CONUS based forward deployable" force, the US Army, that relied a lot less on troops based in foreign countries. That vision was in part implemented.
I don't think we need to have bases in other countries.
Then you want a larger navy. Works for me. ;)
If we have one or two bases in each region, instead of the many, many bases we have now, we can save money and still be able to help allies that need it.
That's a very Rumsfeldian position to take, Ken. ;) In fact, what you just wrote is about 80% match to a draft white paper that crossed my desk for comment mid 2001 ... which outlined far deeper cuts in overseas bases, and fewer in the US ... which at the time included a complete pull out from Korea.

As far as I know, that initiative died 12 September 2001, but Rummy did get to pull some folks out of Korea that a lot of people wanted to stay there.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

Just because Rummy was an evil, warmonger doesn't mean that he never had good ideas. :-)

[McHrozni]

Just because Rummy was an evil, warmonger doesn't mean that he never had good ideas. :-)

Hm. An evil warmonger wanted to (severely?) reduce his overseas capabilities.
Something doesn't sound right :)

McHrozni

[Thunder]

Hitler funded the Autobahn and the V2 rocket, 2 concepts adopted by the USA.

[thaiboxerken]

Hm. An evil warmonger wanted to (severely?) reduce his overseas capabilities.
Something doesn't sound right :)

McHrozni

Really? You think consolidating resources to centralized locations is reducing capability?

[McHrozni]

Really? You think consolidating resources to centralized locations is reducing capability?

To project their power overseas? Yes.

McHrozni

[MikeMangum]

Considering that nearly all of the R&D going on today is associated with either NASA or the Military (No instant gratification for industry to do it), Technological advance would crater pretty quickly. I know for a fact that technology-dependent industries (Computer programming is not, IMO, "technology" per se) have/are not bringing on any bodies in the R&D areas for the last year, and in fact are generally the last to recover from Washington's manipulations...

Private research is a bit more than twice Federal reasearch funding. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9135/FigureA-1.gif

You may not consider computer programming to be "technology", but your shiny computer would be a very expensive paperweight without it. In fact, it is amazing how much of what people rely on every day simply would not function without software, whether it is "software" that isn't burned to a EEPROM, or if it is "firmware"...which is basically just software burned to an EEPROM. That's almost like saying steel and concrete aren't "technologies". Hell, something as simple as the horse collar transformed Europe and was largely responsible for the rise of a middle class and the emancipation of serfs.

[thaiboxerken]

To project their power overseas? Yes.

McHrozni

Why?

[Darth Rotor]

Just because Rummy was an evil, warmonger doesn't mean that he never had good ideas. :-)
He had a great many ideas, some of them good. With those ideas came a lot of damnably frustrating corporate America BS that had bloody eff all to do with the military.

One of the ideas he had before 9-11 had a lot to do with, are you ready for this? parky's dream: cutting the size of the armed forces.

He was keen to reduce manpower, and based on another staffing paper, reducing the number of carrier battle groups from 12 to 8. I have often criticized Rummy as a silver bulletist, and I have had little reason to change that opinion. He was, however, a huge proponent of Special Forces, and increased manning and funding for that arm of the DoD. It was IMO one of his better long term visions.

However, that larger manpower reduction theory he held onto, even when he was embarked in the second war.

I won't derail, but therein lay a root problem of the decisions taken that still have us in Iraq, and that let the civil war fester for three years before someone woke up to reality.
Hitler funded the Autobahn and the V2 rocket, 2 concepts adopted by the USA.
Why do the R & D yourself, if you can borrow or steal it from someone else? :p By the way, Hitler didn't do that, German scientists did, but I suppose you can say he funded it.

DR

[Taarkin]

Oh - don't those people just make your blood boil??

;)
That sound like a cool weapon; let's cut food stamps by $60 million to research it.

[McHrozni]

Why?

Probably because forces of all types have a limited operating range and need bases in the reasonable vicinity of combat operations to refuel, rearm, repair and rest at a minimum. The size of bases is less important, since it's a lot easier and a lot quicker to enlarge bases than it is to build them from scratch. It is also a lot easier to move forces around than it is to move supplies, since they don't have locomotive capabilities.

McHrozni

[thaiboxerken]

Even though we have the technology that gives us great range on our vehicles and weapons and that capability to build temporary bases very quickly?

[McHrozni]

Even though we have the technology that gives us great range on our vehicles and weapons and that capability to build temporary bases very quickly?

Yes. You see, that same technology can be used to enlarge existing bases even quicker, and you don't need to move a whole lot of equipment there if you already have a smaller base there.

Fuel consumption is also a concern - even if not from a financial point of view it is still a logistical concern. It's a lot easier to move vehicles from a number of nearby bases once than it is to constantly refuel them as they operate over large distances. Crew fatigue and equipment wear also come into play.

The forces are also a lot more flexible and don't have to always use the same bases, there are less bottlenecks. The range and speed you mentioned are just as or even more useful in quickly relocating the forces to where the enemy is.

That's why carrier battle groups are so prominent in US military doctrine and so vital to power projection. They're essentially mobile bases, with capabilities to service and supply a small air fleet. The relatively small size of the air fleet is secondary to it's capability to close in to almost any location. Add a capability to deploy special forces and the firepower from the escorts and you have a nice, smallish, rounded base.

McHrozni

[technoextreme]

Private research is a bit more than twice Federal reasearch funding. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9135/FigureA-1.gif

rwguinn is 100% right. The stuff the government funds is both vital to basic science and would be regarded as a hooker with syphilis in the eyes of industry. I don't blame industry for it though but to try and use those statistics in any manner without any information is useless.
Hitler funded the Autobahn and the V2 rocket, 2 concepts adopted by the USA.
You seem to be running into a rabbit hole of non sequitors.

[rwguinn]

Private research is a bit more than twice Federal reasearch funding. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9135/FigureA-1.gif

You may not consider computer programming to be "technology", but your shiny computer would be a very expensive paperweight without it. In fact, it is amazing how much of what people rely on every day simply would not function without software, whether it is "software" that isn't burned to a EEPROM, or if it is "firmware"...which is basically just software burned to an EEPROM. That's almost like saying steel and concrete aren't "technologies". Hell, something as simple as the horse collar transformed Europe and was largely responsible for the rise of a middle class and the emancipation of serfs.
Reading incomprehension much?
Programming is software. Technology is hardware. Without the hardware, programming is a useless endeavor.

[The Fallen Serpent]

An interesting graph related to the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

For comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

I was hoping to find a graph that showed the debt create per year rather than the total per year but it is still useful.

Obviously, eradicating the military/defense budget cannot solve the debt issue. I think that having an interventionist-ready military posture would still be beneficial and worth the cost, even though I disagree with size and number of interventions we have done in the modern era. I wonder if in the post-Cold War era it would have been possible to keep the total spending down about 200 Billion. If so that would have netted us almost 4 Trillion at this point, which does significantly impact the total federal debt. Obviously 200 Billion would not be possible every year, especially since the total debt did not accumulate each year as 2009 dollars.

Spending did decrease with the end of the Cold War, the decrease merely stopped at a level higher than I would have preferred. Obviously it was going to increase after 9/11 with the initiation of two wars. Wars increase spending.

I am not sure what is possible and what would still keep us and our allies relatively safe. It is a good discussion and am glad to see actual experts chime in on the issue. I think the way forward might be to have a military that can rapidly respond and deploy rather than to sit in previous hot spots. It might not be feasible yet or at all. Research is an area I do not want to see reduced too much overall, so my hopes for less military spending might be dashed from that perspective.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes. You see, that same technology can be used to enlarge existing bases even quicker, and you don't need to move a whole lot of equipment there if you already have a smaller base there.

Fuel consumption is also a concern - even if not from a financial point of view it is still a logistical concern. It's a lot easier to move vehicles from a number of nearby bases once than it is to constantly refuel them as they operate over large distances. Crew fatigue and equipment wear also come into play.

The forces are also a lot more flexible and don't have to always use the same bases, there are less bottlenecks. The range and speed you mentioned are just as or even more useful in quickly relocating the forces to where the enemy is.

That's why carrier battle groups are so prominent in US military doctrine and so vital to power projection. They're essentially mobile bases, with capabilities to service and supply a small air fleet. The relatively small size of the air fleet is secondary to it's capability to close in to almost any location. Add a capability to deploy special forces and the firepower from the escorts and you have a nice, smallish, rounded base.

McHrozni

Because you feel you have a better military strategy than Rummy, you think he's not a war-monger?

[MikeMangum]

Because you feel you have a better military strategy than Rummy, you think he's not a war-monger?

What makes you think the concept of smaller, more mobile, more quickly deployable forces is any different than Rumsfeld's basic ideas for force structure? That IS, by the way, signature Rumsfeld philosophy.

[thaiboxerken]

What makes you think the concept of smaller, more mobile, more quickly deployable forces is any different than Rumsfeld's basic ideas for force structure? That IS, by the way, signature Rumsfeld philosophy.

This is irrelevant to your assertion that Rummy was not an evil warmonger.

[Ladewig]

How much money would we save if we ended our Cold War commitments in Germany and Japan?

I have to assume we soend billions to keep all of our soldiers in these two countries.


Japan used to pay a significant percentage of the cost of the U.S. military bases, is that still true?

And as far as protecting Japan from a Soviet or Chinese invasion/attack..is that really plausible anymore?

The Chinese probably won't attack Japan, but it is useful for the U.S. to have bases near Taiwan in case that situation becomes violent.

[The Fallen Serpent]

What makes you think the concept of smaller, more mobile, more quickly deployable forces is any different than Rumsfeld's basic ideas for force structure? That IS, by the way, signature Rumsfeld philosophy.

I think that is exactly what Rumsfeld's basic idea was. I agree with it in certain areas and disagree with it in others. For instance at the point of planning an invasion. At that point escalation is needed and overkill in terms of staffing power and other resources is not exactly wasteful, it is precautionary. Shock & Awe felt silly to me, and I am not a military buff. The military is a blunt instrument when used offensively. It should be respected as such.

I'm not even certain Rumsfeld was himself a warmonger. I have not read the fallout books on the subject and have not seen it mentioned in the media so I am not aware if he fell into the neoconservative camp or one of the other camps during the internal squabbles of the early administration. Having a poor military stategy does not speak one way or another to a person being a warmonger. I recall he was one of the people using religious rhetoric in his reports to President Bush, but wasn't the Pentagon one of his major political opponents internally?

Now I need to look up what his personal views on starting the wars were to see how to mock him accordingly.

[McHrozni]

Because you feel you have a better military strategy than Rummy, you think he's not a war-monger?

Do you think a one line response like that addresses anything?

Better strategy? That will be difficult for you to show, since I wasn't discussing which strategy would be better, but which strategy enables foreign interventionism (warmongering) better. Notice how the plan was shelved after 9/11, when it was clear interventionism was the order of the day? Why do you think that was? Rumsfeld was on the job for another 3 years afterward.

Your position is entirely nonsensical: Rumsfeld planned wars all over the world and decided it would be best to concentrate forces more. Then when it became evident he would have to fight wars all over the world he decided to keep the forces dispersed. Eh?

The only logical conclusion is that Rumsfeld wasn't a warmonger and that he didn't plan a lot of foreign operations, but that changed on 9/11. If you can draw another remotely sensible conclusion, let's hear it.

McHrozni

[doobiedoright]

Truth is, Isolationism, the idea that the US should not get involved with any foreign countries and should, except for "trade" (ie, except when we can make a buck) simply ignore the world outside our borders (except for maybe Canada and Mexico) has always had an appeal in the US, on both the left and the right. It is most recently going under the name on "Non Interventionism" and it's most vocal advocate is Ron Paul.
IMHO, common sense dictates that it is equally stupid for the US to Intervene at the drop of a hat, or to NEVER intervene no matter what is at stake.
And I might argue that a large US economic presence overseas is going to be seen by many overseas as US Imperialism, even if the US Government is not involved.
The point is a lot of those who want to cut defense spending "to the bone" really want to cut defense spending to the point where US Military invention is just plain impossible.

Actually I my self would love to see Europe pay for their own defense!
Lets see them pay for all their progressive crap and their defense at the same time!
IMVHO they have gotten away with way to much while at the same time biting the very country that made their crap possible!
Lets see maybe we can afford health care?

[INRM]

Considering how much money is spent on military programs, I think at least some reduction is necessary. I do NOT believe by any means that we should just dismantle our military...

[The Fallen Serpent]

I would also like to see future interventionist missions to be more multilateral endeavors. Iraq was primarily a US and Uk mission, with a very so so committment from others. Having few allies willing to commit heavily should be a sign to heavily reconsider a course of action. This would also help ease the burden of military action by spreading the cost across more countries. Yes, I think European countries could possibly invest more into NATO forces even if that investment is only money and the staffing power and equipment ultimately comes from other NATO countries.

I do not want evil regimes to be free to do whatever they want but I do not want the US to be the policing nation responsible for keeping this issues in check. It should be a cooperative consensus in my opinion.