USA to spend over trillion dollars to get ready for war of the future

USA to spend over trillion dollars to get ready for war of the future

This is from Pravda, not the best source I admit, but it sounds plausible considering how much money we spend on offense, and our current dear leader. This is a gigantic amount of money, even though it is spread out of 30 years. Just think of what all that money could do for the good of the American people if it was spent on us instead of given to defense contractors.

www.pravdareport.com...

a reply to: CB328

I, as a tax payer, want my country to have the most advanced, cutting edge military on earth. I also want the money spent wisely, and in a non wasteful manner.

That being said, throwing around huge numbers that average ppl can't relate to is playing on emotions. What is the actual percentage of the budget this costs, and what are we getting in return? When you have these facts, an intelligent discussion can ensue.

We spend a lot on the military. No doubt there are some shady dealings going on. To be honest though, I think there is far greater waste and fraud in our social programs.

a reply to: CB328

It's just sensationalism. They are using the "trillion" ceiling to make it look a lot, but thirty years is a long time in annual defense budgets; X thirty in fact.

The annual U.S defense budget is

www.thebalance.com...

The U.S. military budget is $824.6 billion. That's the budget for Fiscal Year 2018 which covers the period October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. Military spending is the second largest federal government expenditure after Social Security at $1 trillion.

In the next thirty years this will of course rise with inflation, et c. Over thirty years could be something very very roughly guessed like 1000, 000, 000, 000 (One trillion) X 30 which would be 30 trillion. This is a very low estimate.

So one trillion plus for a separate defense fund for the modernization of the nuclear deterrent is only a thirtieth of the total defense budget over a thirty year period (this is a low estimate, too). The headlines of your linked article are sensationalist. It is actually this that it relates to:

The US Congressional Budget Office said that the country would spend $1.2 trillion over the upcoming 30 years to upgrade the nuclear arsenal of the United States. As much as $800 billion of the amount will be spent to maintain the existing arsenal, and $400 billion will be used to modernize strategic nuclear forces of the United States. Читайте больше на www.pravdareport.com...

So, over the next thirty years very roughly (just for demonstration purposes) a thirtieth or less of the defense budget will fund its most useful defense component (nuclear deterrent), which give it a strategic advantage big time on the world stage. if it did not it would be walked over by all the other nuclear powers. It is just the modernization of the nuclear deterrent. It costs money, of course it does.

a reply to: Mach2

Given the state of outrageous spending on the 35, new aircraft carriers and some more cash being put into the 22, I would doubt that fiscal restraint is going to suddenly appear.

Considering most of our nukes were designed back in the 50s and 60's.

It's been long over due.

They don't have an indefinite shelf life.

Obviously the nuclear material does, but they system carrier doesn't.

I think there is far greater waste and fraud in our social programs.

Social programs help the American people. Weapons programs mainly help defense corporations.

I WISH IT WAS SO cheap.
THAT'S just to implement what we have already created in developmental costs in the black.
NOT to mention operating space.

originally posted by: CB328

I think there is far greater waste and fraud in our social programs.

Social programs help the American people. Weapons programs mainly help defense corporations.

Social programs IS corporate welfare.

Guaranteed free GMO food, and the JP MORGANS billions on fees for EBT cards.

a reply to: CB328

So you don't even acknowledge any purpose in defense ,nor understand strategic parity.

What if the war of the future becomes the war of the present?

The USA has spending in the trillions already unaccounted for, perhaps Pravda is misinformed or underestimating US preparedness, particularly secret and covert preparations for all contingencies including not only future war, but more imminent wars?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: CB328

So you don't even acknowledge any purpose in defense ,nor understand strategic parity.

The funny part is the only thing paying for their social programs IS defense spending.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Mach2

Given the state of outrageous spending on the 35, new aircraft carriers and some more cash being put into the 22, I would doubt that fiscal restraint is going to suddenly appear.

I doubt it as well. I notice that your examples are all of military expenditures. I agree the F-35 program has gotten out of hand. It's, from what I can tell, an awesome plane, that is virtually untouchable in the sky. It's also, IMO, way overpriced.

My question to you is, do you have equal distain for wasteful, and often criminal spending on social programs, and pork barrel politics? Or is your complaint solely with defense spending?

a reply to: Mach2

My question to you is, do you have equal distain for wasteful, and often criminal spending on social programs, and pork barrel politics? Or is your complaint solely with defense spending?

Since defense spending creates millions of middle class jobs that actually pay income taxes.

It must be scaled back so people would get less on social programs.

a reply to: Mach2

Of course there is wasteful spending in social programs. Medicare has some really bad examples of money being wasted. There are example of what used to be food stamps being abused in the millions of $$.

I am a huge proponent of a federal flat tax. For everyone, even the human corps.

a reply to: CB328

Social programs help ppl to avoid working, and carrying their own weight through life more so than actual needy. I have no problem helping those in bad situations through no fault of their own. A permanent welfare class, however, is not acceptable. Feed all those that are hungry. No problem. Give them all perpetually reloaded debit cards? A resounding NO.

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: CB328

It's just sensationalism. They are using the "trillion" ceiling to make it look a lot, but thirty years is a long time in annual defense budgets; X thirty in fact.

The annual U.S defense budget is

www.thebalance.com...

The U.S. military budget is $824.6 billion. That's the budget for Fiscal Year 2018 which covers the period October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. Military spending is the second largest federal government expenditure after Social Security at $1 trillion.

In the next thirty years this will of course rise with inflation, et c. Over thirty years could be something very very roughly guessed like 1000, 000, 000, 000 (One trillion) X 30 which would be 30 trillion. This is a very low estimate.

So one trillion plus for a separate defense fund for the modernization of the nuclear deterrent is only a thirtieth of the total defense budget over a thirty year period (this is a low estimate, too). The headlines of your linked article are sensationalist. It is actually this that it relates to:

The US Congressional Budget Office said that the country would spend $1.2 trillion over the upcoming 30 years to upgrade the nuclear arsenal of the United States. As much as $800 billion of the amount will be spent to maintain the existing arsenal, and $400 billion will be used to modernize strategic nuclear forces of the United States. Читайте больше на www.pravdareport.com...

So, over the next thirty years very roughly (just for demonstration purposes) a thirtieth or less of the defense budget will fund its most useful defense component (nuclear deterrent), which give it a strategic advantage big time on the world stage. if it did not it would be walked over by all the other nuclear powers. It is just the modernization of the nuclear deterrent. It costs money, of course it does.

My prediction -

Rev: Sensible answer using actual maths.

OP: *tumbleweed*

It's just fiat paper. One of these days the government will do away with the US Mint printing office and let Charmin and Scott tissue start printing our paper money

a reply to: CB328

i've always been the speak softly and carry a big stick kinda guy, and big sticks cost money. i say spend it, and if we have to use it.

We had an overrun of almost a Trillion bucks on medical costs last year. All medical costs and drug costs combined are bankrupting our country. Remember, almost every insurance policy has coverage for medical charges built into the liability, car accidents medical costs are in that price, same with house insurance and workers comp. Add all those together and add military medical expenditures and you will find the true cost of healthcare in this country.

I do know that in this screwed up world that we need a strong military, I wish it was not so but it is. I look at technology in the military expenditures, it is getting crazy, a fighter jet has so much technology that it triples the price tag over the life of the jet from a simple one. Then when the other side figures out how to shoot it down it costs another billion dollars to adapt the planes again. We are creating a nightmare, instead of getting along with other countries we have people here who want to go to war with Russia, trying to force their hand and cutting them down. We should try to form more diplomatic ties instead of throwing insults at Russia and promoting propaganda about collusion that will ultimately keep conflict going.

The Democrats seem to be warmongering now, yet without a stronger military we are doomed if Russia responds. Yes, our military top officials and leaders of our country who are starting the war will have bunkers to live in till the ash settles. We on the other hand have no place to go, we are expendable, regular people have always been expendable. Notice during wars, we never bomb the leaders directly, there is a treaty governing that, no heads of country are supposed to be bombed, everything else is acceptable.

originally posted by: CB328

I think there is far greater waste and fraud in our social programs.

Social programs help the American people. Weapons programs mainly help defense corporations.

And then the taxes on payroll fund the social programs.

No jobs = no social programs