Defense Chief Urges Big Cuts In Military Spending 449
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says the Pentagon is wasting money it will no longer get, and focused on targets as diverse as the large number of generals and admirals, the layers of bureaucracy in the Pentagon, and the cost of military health care. 'The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, opened a gusher of defense spending that nearly doubled the base budget over the last decade,' Gates says. 'Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.' Gates, a Republican who was carried over as Defense Secretary from the Bush administration, has already canceled or trimmed 30 weapons programs with long-term savings predicted at $330 billion, but is now seeking to convert as much as 3% of spending from 'tail' to 'tooth' — military slang for converting spending from support services to combat forces. While this may not seem like a significant savings in the Pentagon's base budget, cuts of any size are certain to run hard against entrenched constituencies. Gates's critique of top-heavy headquarters overseas was underscored by the location of the speech — the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum. President Eisenhower, the supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II, warned the nation of the menacing influence of an emerging 'military-industrial complex' in his farewell address as president in 1960. 'Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,' said Eisenhower, 'so that security and liberty may prosper together.'"
Sad but true (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be spun as a Democratic administration not "supporting the troops", despite it being proposed by Gates, a holdover from a Republican administration. Much like how only Nixon could go to China, only a Republican can advocate cutting the defense budget (even if only a mere 2-3%) without being pilloried as near-treason.
Re:Sad but true (Score:5, Informative)
I am pretty sure Gates is just the mouthpiece for the administration on this. His job is to say and do what the Commander In Chief (aka President) says. Either way, considering roughly 1/6th of the federal budget is millitary spending, we ought to be seeing some better results for that than failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For 665 billion dollars a year, we ought to have hover cars, laser rifles, robot/android soldiers, forcefields and fusion power by now.
2010 Federal budget: 3.552 Trillion Dollars
Total Federal revenue to pay for budget: 2.381 Trillion Dollars
Amount we put on the "Federal Credit Card" (a.k.a. our Children's Grandchildren), just for 2010: 1.717 Trillion Dollars
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget [wikipedia.org]
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf [gpoaccess.gov]
Gates and the defense contractors (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree that we're spending too much on some weapons systems... there's absolutely no excuse to pay 7 billion dollars for a DDG-1000 destroyer...Gates is fiercely protective of the biggest, most expensive military boondoggle of all time, the Joint Strike Fighter. He will absolutely tolerate no talk of canceling it.
It was supposed to be the "cheap" supplement to the F-22, much the same way the F-16 was the cheap supplement to the F-15. But now the F-35 costs as much, or possibly even more than the F-22 (CBO estimate: $122 million a copy and climbing), while being a substantially less capable airplane. And this has happened under Gates' watch.
And yet, he balks at buying more Super Hornets for the Navy instead, at what is a bargain price in the fighter world... $45 million apiece. There's no logic here.
I'm as big a hawk as you'll find, but I think the primary problem is with two parties here... defense contractors, and Congress. Congress sees defense as a jobs program, and defense contractors are ripping off the taxpayer. I've come to the reluctant conclusion perhaps we should abandon private suppliers for the military, and go back to in-house supply solutions. For instance, the Navy used to build their own ships in their own shipyards. It was seen as a way to not be too reliant on private yards, and to keep them honest. God knows we need that again. I'm a big capitalist, and all for competition in truly free, private markets. But defense contracting isn't really a free market. You're serving one customer... the government. Maybe it's time to open up our own shipyards again, and revive the old Naval Aircraft Factory in Philadelphia. Maybe that's the only way to put firms like Lockheed on notice that the gravy train is over.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was supposed to be the "cheap" supplement to the F-22, much the same way the F-16 was the cheap supplement to the F-15. But now the F-35 costs as much, or possibly even more than the F-22 (CBO estimate: $122 million a copy and climbing), while being a substantially less capable airplane. And this has happened under Gates' watch.
I agree. I the plane is anywhere over 100 million per plane, it doesn't make much sense. At that price, based on what I've seen and read, the F22 is more than twice the plane. So from that perspective, it doesn't sound like the tax payers are getting a good return on the money.
And yet, he balks at buying more Super Hornets for the Navy instead, at what is a bargain price in the fighter world... $45 million apiece. There's no logic here.
On the other hand, I can defend this position. Each F22 and F35 consistently tests on par with at least a ten to one ratio. That means an F35, at 120 million each, versus 45 million per SH, is still a far, far, far better buy. For the
Re:Gates and the defense contractors (Score:4, Insightful)
This presumes that 1 F35 can perform the work of 2.7 SHs in many areas.
It can in most areas.
With less available aircraft, it will be more difficult to maintain combat readiness for a squadron during operations
This is a concern I also share. Just the same, this aircraft is not forcing retirement SHs. As such, when numbers matter, they are still available. Also keep in mind, one of the reasons why squadrons are sent out is to provide protection and air superiority for their brethren. In the case of planes like the F22 and F35, this requirements for an extra squadron doesn't necessarily exist. This in turn also reduces the number of aircraft which would otherwise be required in theater. And if they are otherwise available, it frees them up to be tasked where numbers might still be required.
The main problem with the F35 is its cost/capability compared to existing aircraft (F22, F15, F16, SH) and how effective it is likely to be against future air threats. It is unlikely that the F35 will be able to safely operate in airspace defended by Russian S300 or S400 SAM
I encourage you to review tactics. Beyond, I doubt such missiles are anywhere near such a potent threat you believe it to be. You need to remember, many aircraft, left than a couple miles away, typically have much difficulty maintaining a radar lock on F35s and especially F22s. Beyond that, these aircraft also have various jamming capabilities should threats require it.
You also need to keep in mind the effective range of such weapon systems is actually much, much smaller verses nimble targets. Against a fighter, I doubt they are effective against targets over half their stated range against fighters. Furthermore, unless system systems are within twenty miles or so, I doubt they'd even have much hope of even identifying an F35, let alone an F22, as a threat, let a lone a target. This combined with the bag of tactics currently employed doesn't, IMOHO, a significant threat.
Once the US has done this and gained air superiority, the F35 becomes an overpriced bomb truck
It doesn't sound like you understand what an F35 is. It is an air superiority fighter. First and foremost. Your argument is that by not allowing it to serve its primary role it has no value. We'll of course that's true. But that doesn't make your assessment accurate. You need to understand all pilots who have flown against the F35 and especially the F22 are scared shitless of them; and with good reason. Even our own F35/F22 pilots, when flying our other conventional aircraft, are lucky to actually see the aircraft before they are "dead." To say such aircraft will never be used as their primary role means the US is without conflict in the world.
Basically the F35s problem is that it's too ineffective against future peer or near-peer level enemies and too expensive to use in permissive air environments and the F35 program needs to be killed for this reason.
Basically, no one else in the world can even afford to create a "near-peer", let alone a "peer". And when such an aircraft is created in fifty years from now, our existing fleet will have served their purpose wonderfully.
You need to keep in mind, most of the world is only able to design, develop, test, and deploy aircraft in the league of the SH. And frankly, the SH doesn't hold a candle to the aircraft we're talking about. Long story short, we're easily decades away before the US need even worry about a real "near-peer" threat from any other power in the world; let alone a "peer" level threat.
I don't think you fully appreciate the technological leap in capabilities the F22 and F35 represent. Just the same, don't get me wrong, I too still have some reservations about actual fielded costs of the F35. If successful, its a win-win. If not, its still arguably a win - albeit just not at the budget we'd all hope for.
Re:Sad but true (Score:4, Insightful)
Well they wouldn't need lots of power to blind the enemy soldiers, but such weapons would be against the Geneva Convention so we'd have to crank up the power to vaporize or boil the brain to stay in line with the convention.
In the same speech (Score:5, Informative)
Eisenhower said:
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html [h-net.org]
I wonder why people always ignore that part.
Re:In the same speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Because it didn't turn out to be relevant?
That you know of. Maybe a sufficiently advanced scientific-technological elite's control of public policy is indistinguishable from no control at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the two effects are the same, why is the cause important?
As always, because different causes may mean different futures.
i.e.: The two effects are currently the same.
Re:In the same speech (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe a sufficiently advanced scientific-technological elite's control of public policy is indistinguishable from no control at all.
Everyone knows the elite use magic, not sufficiently advanced technology, to control society.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because it hasn't happened yet in the US does not mean it is not a possibility. It's a continuation of the tension between the state and intellectuals that has been going on forever. To put it another way, it's the tension between those who have power and those who have knowledge.
In the olden days it was royalty and clergy and nowadays its military-industrial and scientific-technological. In both cases the relationship is mostly mutually beneficial (the state's power is derived from the intellectuals a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a lot sexier to talk about Harrison Bergeron-style 50-pound encroachments on our FREEDOM! than concede 14 ounces of styrofoam probably prevents thousands of cases of brain injury a year.
As with all of these arguments, the FREEDOM! to ride a bike without a "goddamn-helmet-my-parents-didn't-have-to-wear" is an absolute and self-sufficient good, and the children that my get injured or die as a result are immaterial, since they aren't the speaker and therefore, from a strictly libertarian point of view, th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there ought to be a law requiring that women be virtuous and put out enough to keep men from being so miserable.
Or just end the prohibition on doing it for money..
The war on sex is one of the major causes, if not THE major cause of most of our psychoses.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Easy. Stop all carbon emissions and atmospheric pollutants, and see what happens over the next few decades. If there's no statistically significant drop in the rate of temperature change, then carbon emissions and other atmospheric pollutants weren't the (sole) cause. Wait, is that what they're already asking us to do? See? They're not asking us to stop polluting because they know it's bad -- they're asking us to stop so they can get the data they need to falsify your claim that pollution isn't the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Goes against the teachings of Athena.
Re:In the same speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it has never come close to happening?
Or are you making the case that any of the previous administrations *cough*George W Bush*cough* could be considered a scientific-technological elite? Hell, President Obama just admitted to not knowing how to use an iPod or iPad. Yes, he has his Crackberry, but still...
Scientists routinely have to beg for funding, and NASA always seems to be on death's door for lack of funding.
Wake me when it is the other way around, and the military budget is round-off error for the scientific research one.
Re:In the same speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, anybody who doesn't know how to use an iPod or an iPad can't possibly make a significant contribution to science or technology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, he never goofs off like that bastard GW Bush did:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7607947/Barack-Obama-plays-golf-eight-more-times-than-George-W-Bush.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't remember anyone criticizing Bush about golf.
I remember criticizing him for spending 487 days of his presidency at Camp David, and ANOTHER 490 days at his "ranch" in Texas.
That's 33.46% of his ENTIRE PRESIDENCY (2920 days), for those of you keeping score.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4728085-503544.html [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anybody ever accused Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan of being a "scientific or technical elite." Obama, at least, seems scientifically/technically literate, but that's a far cry from being elite. So the Eisenhwoer quote probably gets ignored because it's entire irrelavant to modern political discourse.
Re:In the same speech (Score:5, Informative)
Arthur Roberts
[Written while the Brookhaven National Laboratory was being planned]
Upon the lawns of Washington the physicists assemble,
From all the land are men at hand, their wisdom to exchange.
A great man stands to speak, and with applause the rafters tremble.
"My friends," says he, "you all can see that physics now must change.
Now in my lab we had our plans, but these we'll now expand,
Research right now is useless, we have come to understand.
We now propose constructing at an ancient Army base,
The best electronuclear machine in any place, -- Oh
It will cost a billion dollars, ten billion volts 'twill give,
It will take five thousand scholars seven years to make it live.
All the generals approve it, all the money's now in hand,
And to help advance our program, teaching students now we've banned.
We have chartered transportation, we'll provide a weekly dance,
Our motto's integration, there is nothing left to chance.
This machine is just a model for a bigger one, of course,
That's the future road for physics, as I hope you'll all endorse."
And as the halls with cheers resound and praises fill the air,
One single man remains aloof and silent in his chair.
And when the room is quiet and the crowd has ceased to cheer,
He rises up and thunders forth an answer loud and clear.
"It seems that I'm a failure, just a piddling dilettante,
Within six months a mere ten thousand bucks is all I've spent.
With love and string and sealing wax was physics kept alive,
Let not the wealth of Midas hide the goal for which we strive. --Oh
"Take away your billion dollars, take away your tainted gold,
You can keep your damn ten billion volts, my soul will not be sold.
Take away your army generals; their kiss is death, I'm sure.
Everything I build is mine, and every volt I make is pure.
Take away your integration; let us learn and let us teach,
Oh, beware this epidemic Berkelitis, I beseech.
Oh, dammit! Engineering isn't physics, is that plain?
Take, oh take, your billion dollars, let's be physicists again."
1956:
Within the halls of NSF the panelists assemble.
From all the land the experts band their wisdom to exchange.
A great man stands to speak and with applause the rafters tremble,
‘My friends, ’says he, b e all can see that budgets now must change.
By toil and sweat the Soviet have reached ten billion volts.
Shall we downtrodden physicists submit ? No, no,-revolt!
It never shall be said that we let others lead the way.
We'll band together all finest brains and save the day.
Give us back our billion dollars, better add ten billion more.
If your budget looks unbalanced, just remember this is war.
Never mind the Army’s shrieking, never mind the Navy’s pain.
Never mind the Air Force projects disappearing down the drain.
In coordinates barycentric, every BeV means lots of cash,
There will be no cheap solutions,-neither straight nor synchroclash.
If we outbuild the Russians, it will be because we spend.
Give, oh give those billion dollars, let them flow without an end.
[Folklore records that the brave and solitary scientist who so vigorously
defended the purity of science at the original meeting was killed by
a beam of hyperons when the Berkeley Bevatron was first switched on.]
In this light the context of Eisenhower may be clearer. Here is a larger quote:
Re: (Score:2)
What part of scientific-technological elite do you not get?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh lord, the "elite" word has been dragged out again.
I would always rather have the academic elite running things, than ordinary slobs like most of America. Who would you rather have representing America, some NASCAR watching slob with a high school degree who can barely read at a 7th grade level (on the rare he actually chooses to read), who receives all of his "wisdom" from television news, and talk radio, and some mega-commercial-church pulpit; or someone with many years of education, who tries to rely
Re:In the same speech (Score:4, Interesting)
or someone with many years of education, who tries to rely on handed down wisdom from people much smarter than him?
This would be preferable to the former. Unfortunately, in reality it usually denotes someone who receives all of his "wisdom" from a filtered academic environment that is more concerned with making reality fit a particular system than handling it as-is, in all of its shifting complexity. Remember, just about everybody involved in the financial meltdown was college-educated--their models told them there would be no crash.
I don't want either one of those types in charge of things. What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?
Oh, you mean the collective pipe-dream and fictional character used by our former elites in their own nearly-purely-academic works (we now call them "founding fathers" and "philosophers", I believe?) Said individuals do exist, but they're as rare as they ever were. Nostalgia's a bitch.
Woo, maybe I could get a real job (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this mean major cutbacks on corporate welfare and job security clearances for US Persons?
I'd love to get an engineering job outside of the defense/military industrial complex, maybe this will finally make the other jobs on the market relatively more competitive! And maybe I could get to apply some of the mechanical/aerospace skills I learned in college finally?
Corporate welfare through defense spending has been an awfully good way of keeping the educated middle class too busy doing busywork to try to enact any kind of social change. But maybe mass entertainment has finally caught up with keeping those minds preoccupied with inane things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My complaint is that it says something somewhat rotten about us as a society if the definition of success for a half-decent STEM grad is to join the ranks of the military-industrial complex and live off of tax dollars divided among the constituency.
As for my personal story, I started off in the civil sector doing something very interesting, but a few years after 9/11 our group was dissolved and absorbed by the defense division. I left that company after it looked like that wasn't going to be temporary, and
It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE (Score:5, Insightful)
"Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, not one, and we could explore space together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." -Bill Hicks
Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE (Score:4, Insightful)
Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world
Having no military power makes about as much sense as having enough to obliterate the entire planet.
Is there still some people who believe nations live in peace because people are naturally kind and caring?
Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said, it's hippie bullshit...but it is true. If you look at how much money the world collectively spends on trying to kill each other, we could instead SUPPORT each other many times over.
This is one of those "I know this will never happen, but this is how it should happen" kind of thoughts.
Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE (Score:5, Insightful)
but it is true. If you look at how much money the world collectively spends on trying to kill each other, we could instead SUPPORT each other many times over.
This is one of those "I know this will never happen, but this is how it should happen" kind of thoughts.
Ohh, that kind of thoughts... Then why stop at the military?
If we were all kind and caring, there'd be no need for money or property, people would just work because it's necessary for teh common good of the society. We'd work as much as reasonably possible, while being happy. Then, the results of all that work would be distributed among the people, in a optimal way.
And, as to feed the entire population would only need the work of a minority, the rest could center on science, to investigate how to propagate the human collective to the stars.
In flying unicorns, genetically engineered for such purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Ohh, that kind of thoughts... Then why stop at the military?
If we were all kind and caring, there'd be no need for money or property, people would just work because it's necessary for teh common good of the society. We'd work as much as reasonably possible, while being happy. Then, the results of all that work would be distributed among the people, in a optimal way.
And, as to feed the entire population would only need the work of a minority, the rest could center on science, to investigate how to propagate the human collective to the stars.
There's this little-known franchise that's really popular, I'm not sure if you've heard of it. They did exactly what you described though. Here, you should check it out [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's little-known home boy from back in the day that said the same things too. Here, you should check him out. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Already responded to something very similar [slashdot.org]. This is one of those "I know this will never happen, but this is how it should happen" kind of thoughts.
I like Ike (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading somewhere that Eisenhower was the president to most significantly cut the military budget in the past 60 years.
Anyone else who tried to do it was labeled as "making America weaker" or a giant wuss. But it was much harder to call the man who lead the largest amphibious invasion in history a pussy.
Re:I like Ike (Score:5, Funny)
it was much harder to call the man who lead the largest amphibious invasion in history a pussy.
A frog, sure, maybe even a salamander... But never a pussy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some jackass will always be willing to take money for such a cause.
Remember triple amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland?
They have no shame.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some jackass will always be willing to take money for such a cause.
Remember triple amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland?
They have no shame.
Being a military vet doesn't neccessarily mean you support a strong defense, or even support a military at all. Howard Zinn, after all, was a decorated AAF veteran.
And ultimately, while you're blaming "them"... Republican strategists... ultimately it was the voters of Georgia that made the decision, not "them". The fact is, Cleland was becoming increasingly liberal (see his votes on ANWR, abortion, etc) in an increasingly conservative state.
If you have a problem with the vote, take it up with the voters.
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years. If it continues to increase at this rate it will surely bankrupt us.
Very unfortunate, that using future tense is incorrect...:-/
Re: National Debt? (Score:5, Insightful)
I put it to you that you are already bankrupt from overspending for the past 30 years. If the USA wasn't a nation that can just keep printing more money when required, or spend itself trillions into the hole, it would have been bankrupt years ago.
The Military/Industrial Complex that Eisenhower was warning against, got into power, and its been reaping massive fortunes for its Corporate Owners for that entire time. Look at Haliburton most recently.
Blackwater - when did the US citizenry decide it was actually okay for the country to hire mercenaries, and in fact let them equip themselves with a private airforce etc? Billions lost there.
Its long since past time for these cuts to be made - and in fact if the system were forced to trim itself down to ensure the "Tooth" part of the equation is still effective it would probably be very effective still - but the US budget is firmly in the grasp of the corporations that are making billions in profits for their owners off of defense spending, and the Military who naturally want all the high-tech tools and manpower they can get so they can be as effective as possible. You are not going to break that grip, ever. The politicians who are in office, BELONG to those companies, and if they want to keep their jobs, must keep supporting them I am afraid.
Not Quite (Score:5, Insightful)
Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years.
No, the cost of individual weapons systems has been rising at an unsustainable rate. Military spending is a fraction of what it was during it's peacetime highs, when it dominated federal spending in the 50's and 60's. Bush the Elder made big cuts to the military budget, and Bill Clinton made even bigger cuts. Even at the height of our military force structure during the Reagan years, the military was a fraction of what it was under Ike, Kennedy, and Johnson.
What we're getting isn't more military spending, but less bang for our military buck, by buying fewer weapons. We're spending about the same, GDP-wise. It's just that individual ships, planes, etc, cost more, so we're buying less of them. We bought 800 F-15's. We replaced them with 187 F-22's. Same buck. Less bang, even though the individual weapons are more capable. There's simply no way one F-22 can replace 4 F-15's in the real world, no matter what Lockheed's marketing department says.
By far the largest and most bloated parts of the federal budget are the entitlements... Social Security, Medicare, etc. They'll bankrupt us long before military spending would. And while you can cut military spending, by law, you can't cut SS and Medicare, only their rates of growth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And while you can cut military spending, by law, you can't cut SS and Medicare, only their rates of growth.
Please don't propagate this bullshit. You can cut SS/Medicare and just about anything else by law or otherwise. Another option is to simply not fund something. Whatever law one Congress passes, another Congress - or even the same Congress - can revoke. Why would you think otherwise?
Re:Not Quite (Score:4, Informative)
There's simply no way one F-22 can replace 4 F-15's in the real world, no matter what Lockheed's marketing department says.
You raise an extremely good point, and Lanchester's Square Law [wikipedia.org] agrees with you. Basically, in order for a military force to beat an opponent twice its size, its weapons need to be four times as effective. In other words, numbers trump technology.
This only goes so far of course. It's based on a model in which both armies are engaged for the entire duration of the fight. If technology allows one army to strike the other from a distance with impunity, then the model does break.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure defense is a priority. But why do we need to spend so many billions on stealth jets when our number one enemy is planting IODs and have absolutely no air defense? Why do we need to have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined when nobody offers anything close to a serious threat to our naval forces? Why do we need so many bases around the world when we effectively have mobile bases (carriers) that we can send virtually anywhere?
We can do a hell of a lot more with a billion dollars spent on intelligence than a billion dollars spent on a jet. But a billion dollars spent on intelligence won't provide nice, high-paying jobs in dozens of congressional districts. Building a jet will so it will always get the higher priority.
Note: The US currently has 11 carriers and is building more. Russia has one functional carrier. China bought an antiquated one from Russia and turned it into a casino but may be building two of its own. France has one as does Spain. The next largest fleet of carriers in the world after the US? The UK with 3 old carriers.
Re:About time (Score:4, Interesting)
The one the UK is building, the Queen Elizabeth Class is one quarter the tonnage of the Gerald R Ford class of which the US is building three.
The fleet carrier is going the way of the battleship, with more advanced S/VTOL aircraft and increased reliance on UAV/UCAV's smaller, cheaper ships perform the same duties. Much in the same way that guided missile cruisers and Aircraft carriers saw the end of the Battleship, drone armed destroyers and assault (light) carriers will see the end of the fleet carrier.
Throwing money at something will not make it work. The US needs to get out of this mindset. You need more brilliant people having good ideas, like back in the 50's and 60's.
I believe that George W Bush is symptomatic of US governmental problems, he promised to "run the government like a businesses" and that part he did, he ran the government like a business straight into the ground. Governments are fundamentally different to businesses and not readily interchangeable and the US needs to eliminate this mindset.
Sounds like a decent idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes sense to me. America is in a huge economic hole and desperately needs money pumped into infrastructure, health, job creation and other areas of government. America spends more on the military than other developed countries combined, so even a slight reduction in this should reap rewards in other areas. And if the US is smart about how it cuts spending, it does not even mean the military need become weaker as a result. Spend smarter, not 'harder', I guess you could say.
Re:Sounds like a decent idea (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if it does? The US already has the most powerful military in the world by an order of magnitude. What do we need all of this "power" for, anyway? We haven't had a real threat to the US since WWII.
Re:Sounds like a decent idea (Score:5, Insightful)
In a straight up fight(no nukes) the USA would lose to china definitely
Very doubtful. For starters, in a China-U.S. fight, it would definitely all happen on Chinese territory, simply because China doesn't have any means to project its force as far as U.S. Technologically, U.S. is superior - best Chinese tech is one generation behind. China has an edge in manpower, but that's about it.
and probably Russia(it's close enough to wonder)
As a Russian whose father is a retired Russian (and before that, Soviet) army major, I can tell you - from his words as well as my observations - that Russian army, in today's conditions, would stand a snowball's chance in hell against U.S., even if the latter would invade Russian soil. Russian army is mostly of conscripts, and they are poorly trained and poorly fed. While there are a few nice shiny toys such as Tu-160 and S-400, they are few and far in between, and the bulk of Russian forces is equipped with weapons dating back to 70s or so, and not significantly upgraded since then. What's worse is that equipment has been poorly maintained, and the count of planes, tanks etc on paper simply doesn't represent the real number of operational units.
The other big deal is logistics, and things are even worse there. E.g. fuel supply would be a major headache for Russia for any prolonged warfare - ironically, given its status as an "oil superpower".
Now, if U.S. would try to occupy and hold Russia like they're doing to Iraq, then it would get messy for them real quick due to guerrilla warfare, of which Russia has ample past experience to draw from, and fitting conditions (e.g. huge swathes of forested terrain; low-quality roads further degraded by seasonal weather). But that's a very different story, which doesn't have much to do with army strength as such.
Budget cuts (Score:4, Funny)
When your budget is greater than your earning power, things must be cut. That's just the way it is and anyone with a brain can understand that. As such, I expect that the US Military will accept the cuts logically and maturely... Much like the Greek people.
Re:Budget cuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Um the military only earning power is body bags of the enemy. Gezz man The military is for protecting our country and our way of life,there not a for profit company. I want our men and women to have every tool available to them,no mater the cost too protect our country and way of life.
The military itself may not be "for profit", but MANY of the companies that supply the military with equipment have ties to various politicians and/or political groups. Iraq/Afghanistan weren't wars for oil, they were wars for profit in general...just like every other war in history.
Much of the technology we are currently using (fighter planes, as an example) serve no purpose over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bombers, sure...but planes designed for air-to-air combat? What, are they fighting the 47th Flying Sandies Brigade? Much of our military spending is still stuck in the Cold War. It needs to be drastically altered.
This is why Obama kept Gates (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, If Robert Gates was to run for president (or even replace Biden) , I would vote for him.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a lot easier to find waste in the military. The military knows where it is. The hard thing, is that you can't cut it. It's not because of the normal turf wars, it's because all too often you're legally forbidden to cut it. There are numerous weapon systems that the military doesn't want, yet, they have forced on them. Let me give an example I found last night. Since the late 80s the Air Force wanted to replace the A-10 close air support attack craft. Their first plan was to create a F-16 variant [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have seen some of his actions lately that seem to show he is making smarter decisions, but that being said, Gates is one of the last people I think we would want in the presidency, much less in the position he is in now. Under his watch since 2006 there have been some of the biggest travesties, both strategically and tactically, that could have been made. He is not only one of the "good ol boys" who basically got into his position because of his tenure at A&M and previous work at CIA (while being heav
Military-Industrial Complex (Score:5, Insightful)
If you study the events leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the size and rampant spending of their military-industrial complex as it slowly bankrupted them for thirty years comes out on top. Everyone knew it existed, and everyone knew it would suck the nation dry before they could "win" the Cold War against the United States, but it was so entrenched in their economy that the means to measure and control it simply did not exist. It's interesting to see that Eisenhower noticed this disturbing trend fifty years ago. If the Soviet Union was bled dry in thirty years, how much longer can the United States survive the siphoning of hundreds of billions of dollars from their economy? Or is it already too late?
American citizens really must ask themselves what this spending has done for them. Access to foreign oil? Protection from terrorists? For a fraction of the trillions of dollars spent in the past decade on "defense", those issues could have been resolved virtually overnight. Instead, you have made a select group of people very rich and very powerful. Was it worth it?
Re:Military-Industrial Complex (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, you have made a select group of people very rich and very powerful. Was it worth it?
Well, since they also happen to be the ones in charge of almost everything, I think they'd say yes. The lower classes are too busy drugging up and watching TV, and the middle classes are kept busy with B.S. distractions like "gay marriage" and federal vs state control of abortion. When Bush/Haliburton said "mission accomplished" they meant it literally. Just not the mission the gullible thought it was.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you still would have a deficit of 1 trillion in the current budget even if you cut every last dollar out of defense. Get a sense of proportion. It will be the entitlement programs that bankrupt the U.S.
Re: Military-Industrial Complex (Score:4, Interesting)
It will be the entitlement programs that bankrupt the U.S.
You refer, of course, to the entitlement programs for the rich and powerful, such as Gates is saying we need to cut out?
We'll go bankrupt because of the unwritten amendment to our constitution that says "The Congress shall make no law that cuts into anyone's profits or share prices."
That and the fact that we've offshored all our industry, so that what passes for an economy these days is just a giant pyramid scheme called "Wall Street".
Re:Military-Industrial Complex (Score:5, Informative)
A sense of proportion? Here's some proportion for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures [wikipedia.org]
If we cut our war budget from six times the next-biggest country to three times the next-biggest country, our budget would balance and our economy would grow. And we would still be far and away the best-defended nation.
Re:Military-Industrial Complex (Score:5, Informative)
How does that math work?
According to your chart, the US spends 607 billion on its entire military.
According to this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget) the budget deficit is about 1.4 trillion.
So if you cut out US military spending entirely, you wouldn't have cut half of the deficit.
If you cut it to 3x what China spends (3 x 85 billion = 255 billion, or a 352 billion dollar cut) you will still have over 1 trillion of deficit.
The US spends a ton on its military. Whether it needs to or not is something that can be debated, as well as whether that money could be better spent elsewhere. But saying that military spending is even the primary reason the US government is bankrupt is just bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tax revenues are lower at the moment due to the recession. Spending is higher at the moment due to stimulus spending due to the recession.
Cutting a few hundred billion in wasted military expense does not balance the budget this year, but it does once revenues and expense return to non-recession levels.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What a wonderful, hippie, idea!
Unfortunately the numbers aren't anywhere like you think they are.
Total outlays this year: $3.5T (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e
However, one suggestion for him (Score:4, Interesting)
Military-industrial-CONGRESS complex (Score:5, Insightful)
In the councils of government [msu.edu], we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-congress complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
I know it's complex, but if you ignore the political implication aspect you're devaluing the entire notion.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we're doomed then. For the majority of USA "citizens," if it doesn't exist on American Idol, it doesn't exist.
READ The transcript, don't depend on the media (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467 [defense.gov]
I found a lot of the media coverage to be selective, and the headline on this /. posting to be somewhat misleading
Bang For the Buck (Score:3, Interesting)
There will always be terrorists--does that mean that we must always have war? If we do have war, does this mean that we always have to fight in in the quintessential American way--throwing massive amounts of expensive resources at our enemies at an overwhelming rate?
That strategy is great for WWII and for duking it out with the Soviet Army at the Fulda Gap, but it isn't very sensible for a long term war against a loose coalition of poor, ideologically committed killers.
We're spending tens of thousands of dollars per terrorist kill. If we're going to fight terrorists successfully we need to do it on a budget. Our irresponsible spendthrift congresspeople can only see as far as the money that defense industries bring to their regions. Military spending can easily become just welfare for the upper classes. Gates' point about the military being topheavy with generals and admirals is important. The military leadership is committed to propagating itself and will never act to make its command structure more "lean and mean."
We've remained in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years because our military is a $700 hammer and those countries happen to be the nails that our country's warhammer is adapted to. That approach isn't working and we can't afford it forever.
Hard to Kill (Score:3, Informative)
Reading Ike's entire speech (Score:3, Insightful)
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. "
I wonder if we will see similar thinking with respect to funding science?
-cluge
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It definitely goes against the grain of what we've seen before now.
Stating the obvious usually does.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.
However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.
After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is literally the only area of defense I support increasing funding for. I find it funny (and sad) that the people who most loudly proclaim to "support the troops" don't really give a shit about them once they're back.
I may personally want to cut defense spending and often not even respect the troops or what they're doing, but as misguided as I think they are, they sure as shit deserve support when they come home missing limbs or with PTSD. It's disgusting the way most soldiers end up due to the way w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed.
If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.
However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.
After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.
I firmly agree. One important point that Gates misses is that military personnel and civilian employees of the military often have much lower salaries than the equivalent private sector positions. One of the main reasons that many people make the choice to serve directly rather than as, say, a contractor is that the government promises job security and health benefits. In other words, many people are choosing stability over paycheck. If Gates is going to reduce the "stability" portion of that equation,
Re:Military healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
Soildiers, sailors and marines, as well as their families, earn everything they get. I would hardly call it an 'entitlement' program to give benefits to people that we ask to give up their youngest, healthiest years and spend them slogging through mud, risking their lives; or for their families to have to sit back and wait, wondering if their spouse/parent will come home in one piece, if not alive. I'm not saying this because of the "rah-rah-rah" stuff, I'm saying it because there is a world of difference between soldiers earning keep for themselves and their families and, say, welfare. "Back in the day" there might have been something to be said for perhaps a tiered system where those "in the rear with the gear", who were at less risk, didn't get as sweet a deal. But, as we're now in wars where there really aren't front lines and safe zones, where anyone is a potential enemy and you're just one grenade away from death, even at the supply depot, there really isn't a whole lot of difference now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's voluntary. Nobody is asking anybody to do anything. If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't sign up. Why people sign up with families, I'll never understand. None of the "wars
Re:Military healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm writing this in Arlington, Virginia, and I believe that most of the U.S. military's overseas missions, such as the war on Iraq, are neither defensive nor necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I was merely disagreeing with Shakrai's comment, which was pretty limited in scope. Sure, I agree that if you're going to field an army that you'd better make sure its soldiers don't have to worry about whether their families have food on the table or their kids can go to the doctor when they get sick. (But that's also part of why I don't think we should field so many unnecessary armies in the first place.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you are saying is that the people who are closest to horrible tragedy often have their judgment clouded by the desire for revenge that goes along with such atrocities, even to the point of not being able to make rational decisions?
Agreed, that happens, and its why hot heads make bad policy. Its why we should outlaw naming bills after murdered children. Its why we need to roll back the majority of post-9/11 changes. Its why the civil libertarians need to yell the loudest when everyone else is the mos
Re:Military healthcare (Score:4, Interesting)
> Because some people want to ensure a future for their children? Is that really that hard to
> understand?
>
> I'll grant you though that the need to do so may or may not exist today.
No not at all, though, what IS hard to understand, for me, is how anyone, who hasn't had their head in the sand for their entire life, equates signing up to fight whoever congress and/or the president says to fight with ensuring a future for their children.
So far, they have a piss poor track record when it comes to picking the fights that we need to (or even should) fight. So far they have shown absolutely no shame whatsoever when its come to provoking the start of conflicts for political ends (a tradition going back far enough that Lincoln himself was nicknamed "Spotty Lincoln", long before he was president).
Aside from the revolution (which wasn't fought under the current government), the war of 1812, WWI, and WWII, I am having trouble thinking of a conflict that Americans needed to fight to ensure the future for their children.
-Steve
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The alternative is that the soldier's enroll their family into a healthcare program and pay for it then? Ok, cool. So they will remove the benefit from the soldier and pay him the value of the lost benefit so he can then pay for healthcare. It's not like it's the whole family, only spouse and children under 18. No parents or other family, just dependants.
Besides, have you been to the military hospital? Trust me, it's cheaper to leave the military healthcare as it is.
Re:Military healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it really makes sense to have a parallel health care system only for soldiers?
VA hospitals are a pretty good system, but they should really be for everyone, not just ex soldiers. Public health care is good for everyone, not just people who were in wars.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, yes, it is good to have a parallel health care system only for soldiers. The physical and psychological needs are vastly different than most civilian situations. We owe it to those who put their lives on the line for us to take care of them. We do not owe it to everyone else (including me) to take care of them.
On the other hand, the real scandals are that (a) the VA system is shockingly bad at providing good health care, and (b) if ObamaCare is not repealed, we will essentially get VA for everyone
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"VA hospitals are a pretty good system" ...compared to the average American hospital.
(As good as the best hospital? No.)
Re:Military healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Healthcare is considered a right in most of Europe. One of the big pushes has been to provide healthcare for everyone.
The military healthcare system for veterans and their families is an absolute necessity. Soldiers get payed crap, they deal with a job that curtails their constitutional freedoms, a job where they have to deal with the trauma of violence, death, killing and risk being killed/maimed themselves.
You want to cut the military pay roll? Fine. Reduce recruiting, let old soldiers retire. But each and every one of them needs what little help and compensation they do get and deserves more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The military is NOT the "largest entitlement program in the country." It's not even fucking CLOSE.
Maybe you should take your ignorant self over to http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 [cbpp.org] and read the very simple article that breaks out the spending. The U.S. Military budget is about 20%
Except those numbers are a bit misleading. Why are benefits paid to veterans NOT included in the defense spending part of that chart? That money is certainly part of what we spend on defense. It's just a game to make it sound like less than it really is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Military healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
*I* think Social Security and other entitlements are a waste of money, but that's because I'm 27 and not going to see a penny of it.
People have been wringing their hands over the looming demise of Social Security since before you were born.
The only real threat of you not getting your investment back is if the politicians find enough excuses to dip into the kitty for other uses, or if the people who want to transfer the whole kitty into the stock market finally get their way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.iousathemovie.com/ [iousathemovie.com]
Re: Military healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless your workforce continued to increase, social security was never sustainable anyway. It was only possible over the past 40 years because of the baby boomers. Without another similar increase in workers, and another one every 40 years, it'd be impossible for the taxes collected to keep up with the people retiring, especially as they're also living longer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SocSec would be eminently sustainable if it were pegged to the average life expectancy with a 5 year lag between the rate and when it was implemented. Which is currently over 77 years old.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, but only if you define "pyramid scheme" in such a way that Social Security is not one.
If you are anyone -- including someone currently on Social Security -- and expect to get a comfy retirement from Social Security, you are guaranteed to be disappointed. Social Security is not setup to provide a comfortable retirement, it is setup to
Re:Military healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
if we don't provide what they want AARP is going to come wielding pitchforks on their golf carts?
Pretty much. Social programs keep human misery below the "bloody uprising" threshold, they are as important to social stability as police and fire services.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> It's nice to see Mr. Gates being so active in his retirement. After running Microsoft for so long, running the US Military must be a nice break for him.
> It looks like he's using his business acumen to streamline the military.
Don't worry. Military spending will come to a screeching halt when he's done with Operation Bluescreen!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to consider the strategic value of these bases as well. Hawaii is important as a site for a na