Would halving US defense spending actually be so bad? Pros? Cons?

U.S. military budget inches closer to $1 trillion mark, as concerns over federal deficit grow

The U.S. Senate on Monday voted to give the military $716 billion for 2019, approving one of the biggest defense budgets in modern American history despite concerns from some economists and lawmakers about the rapidly rising federal deficit.

America’s staggering defense budget, in charts

All told, the U.S. government spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon's underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. It also includes arms transfers to foreign governments.

I mean, come on, would it be so bad if it were halved or something?

Pros? Cons?

EDIT: Even with halving (and the giant deficit), I wouldn't complain if an extra $70B or so was cut from "defense" spending and instead added to NASA's measly $20B. Sounds naive, but still...

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

It is higher than it should be in part due to the previous administration cut back spending to the point that our military was almost non operational. At one point I believe half of our strike aircraft could not fly. The amount of non-operational craft is still staggering.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Only if you want to half the deterrent to all those desperate to exact their revenge who are just wading water in wait for that opportunity.

And theirs plenty wading.

The MIC is a spaple of our economy at this time. It is staggering amounts of money, but a large amount of that is recycled, directly back into the economy.

I'm all in on eliminating waste, payoffs, and non compete contracts where possible, but not for dismantling the military, black projects, or our ability to project power on a global scale.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

If we were in a truly wartime mentality, I bet our money would go a hell of a lot further. I'm sure we could squeeze a 5 to 10% savings if everyone really tried. Just like every bloated Bureaucracy there is fat to be trimmed.

There is no appetite from either party, the Armed forces or the MIC to really attempt that.

I'd be curious as to what a 1 year set of cuts would actually save vs the operationale capabilites of our forces.

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Only if you want to half the deterrent to all those desperate to exact their revenge who are just wading water in wait for that opportunity.

And theirs plenty wading.

Seriously, who is really willing to get in a knockdown drag out fight with us? It wouldn't be a 50% force reduction, let's not talk silly. Even now with Iran, we could neuter them with just a fraction of our forces.

Allies could and SHOULD, pony up their fair share in any conflicts.

Defense spending is like a big tree where you see the big top part but it's hard to see where all the roots go. So much of the economy depends on it, it's crazy. Everything from stealth bombers to the McDonald's when an enlisted soldier uses his Army pay to buy his daughter a Happy Meal.

And forget about all the engineers and designers and college professors working on rockets and satellites who would be out of work, unable to pay their mortgages. And a peaceful endeavor like the exploratory space program can't support them all.

So much money from Uncle Sugar.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Only if you want to half the deterrent to all those desperate to exact their revenge who are just wading water in wait for that opportunity.

And theirs plenty wading.

Seriously, who is really willing to get in a knockdown drag out fight with us? It wouldn't be a 50% force reduction, let's not talk silly. Even now with Iran, we could neuter them with just a fraction of our forces.

Allies could and SHOULD, pony up their fair share in any conflicts.

I think Russia and China want us to cut our military spending and weapons development so they don’t have to “ get in a knockdown drag out fight with us? “

From 35-45% of DoD funding goes to soldiers and their benefits.
48.8 Billion of that is related to healthcare alone.

Cutting the military budget in half cuts the military capacity more than half, as the effect of certain things being cut in half funding wise means they are no longer functional what so ever. Take GPS as an example, if you cut funding for it in half, it will no longer function and degrade to the point of being unusable. As of right now, the only other navigational system that works is GLONASS (the Russian version), as Galileo is not working, and BeiDou only has 10 meter accuracy.

So cutting funding in half will require certain functionalities to be given priority, while others are completely trashed to make up for it. Resulting in capabilities being cut by more than half.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Only if you want to half the deterrent to all those desperate to exact their revenge who are just wading water in wait for that opportunity.

And theirs plenty wading.

Seriously, who is really willing to get in a knockdown drag out fight with us? It wouldn't be a 50% force reduction, let's not talk silly. Even now with Iran, we could neuter them with just a fraction of our forces.

Allies could and SHOULD, pony up their fair share in any conflicts.

I think Russia and China want us to cut our military spending and weapons development so they don’t have to “ get in a knockdown drag out fight with us? “

I'm sure they would like us to spend less..... Hell the USSR collapsed in great measure to having to compete with the Reagan Build up and Star Wars.

That being said, there isn't a military that can compete with us and the AMT of money we spend on said military.

We could cut 5 to 10% and still be the badass of the World.

They could probably halve the budget just by reining in the corruption and dodgy cost overruns.

How else does a spanner cost a thousand dollars, or what is that black budget really for?

The U.S. economy is largely propped up by defense spending. Entire sectors of the economy exist primarily, if not solely to serve military and defense spending.

Slashing the military budget by fifty percent, without some plan to deal with the accompanying crash of the stock market and immediate economic depression would be, well, very bad.

a reply to: Mach2

1 million dollars spent in defence creates 6.9 jobs. Study found that if the money was instead spent on infrastructure it would create an additional 600,000- 700,000 jobs.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Mach2

1 million dollars spent in defence creates 6.9 jobs. Study found that if the money was instead spent on infrastructure it would create an additional 600,000- 700,000 jobs.

Is that some kind of "new" math?

Think about what you just posted, and get back to me when you see the, quite obvious, flaw, because if that is really what the study says, there is no reason to read it.

originally posted by: Annagramma
They could probably halve the budget just by reining in the corruption and dodgy cost overruns.

How else does a spanner cost a thousand dollars, or what is that black budget really for?

A common "spanner" doesn't cost $1000 dollars.

A tool, custom designed for a specific repair, however, may, and there are reasons for that.

First of all, the government is not buying this "tool" in any kind of volume. A small custom order of anything is inherently expensive.

Second of all, the material, any platings, coatings, testing such as x-ray, magnaflux, penetrant inspect, etc., which there always is has to be certified, and traceable back to original sources. This creates a tremendous amount of paperwork along every step of the way. Not to mention some of the "packaging" requirements on defense ordering.

So you see, it costs that much, because it costs that much if you want to ensure that under fire, when a life, or mission may be on the line, that "tool" damn well be high quality, and manufactured properly to specification.

I'm not saying there isn't massive waste in defense, ang gov in general, but don't throw out $1000 tools being fraudulently purchased, while someone takes $950 off the top, because you don't know what you are talking about.

Are there examples of thi kind of theft? Im sure there are, but it is not commonplace.

No and no especially if the US pulls out of every treaty that forces the US to defend other countries when it gets attacked.

That is why the US should shutdown every single military base in the world and let other countries take care of themselves.

In fact, no more aid as well, after all, the world considers US aid exploitation money anyways.

originally posted by: richie221
No and no especially if the US pulls out of every treaty that forces the US to defend other countries when it gets attacked.

That is why the US should shutdown every single military base in the world and let other countries take care of themselves.

In fact, no more aid as well, after all, the world considers US aid exploitation money anyways.

That's all good in theory, until the world around us goes to hell in a handbasket. Think about what our isolationist mentality cost us in WWII. Had we been in a position of world superpower then, we could have intervened before 100 million ppl died needlessly.

Don't misunderstand me. I think we stick our nose in where it doesnt belong at times, and other countries need to take more responsibility, rather than relying un the US to foot the bill.

Our economy, and standard of living is quite dependant on world stability, moreso now than ever.

This would collapse the entire global economy. That however, is going to happen anyway and the sooner it does the slightly less the inevitable pain. Then we can get on with the transition from a fragile civilization with increasing points of catastrophic failure to building a more robust world defined with meaning and purpose.

'The Transition - Neurohacker'
www.youtube.com...

I would be fine with halving military spending as long as we halve entitlements and halve the number of government employees in every sector of government at the same time, federal, state, county, and city.

originally posted by: inthewinterdark
This would collapse the entire global economy. That however, is going to happen anyway and the sooner it does the slightly less the inevitable pain. Then we can get on with the transition from a fragile civilization with increasing points of catastrophic failure to building a more robust world defined with meaning and purpose.

'The Transition - Neurohacker'
www.youtube.com...

While I beleive your vision of a "brave new world" is an admirable goal, and one that, hopefully, will come to fruition, we are centuries away from anything like that. I would posit that we are more divided than ever, and the barriers, such as religious intolerance, economic disparity, and radical differences in basic philosophy are not going away any time soon.

I also have to wonder why you beleive economic collapse would lead to this utopia. If history is any indication, and I beleive it is, economic collapse generally leads to anarchy, and evil despot leaders. Quite the opposite of what you are implying.

I guess I just can't see the specific mechanics behind the path. Maybe you can enlighten me with a more detailed cause and effect timeline?