It amazes me how people feel the need to reduce a debate to personal insults just because of a perceived difference of opinion. It is really quite immature. I can see the argument from both sides
If you were to calculate a nations defense budget by GDP (which is the fair way to actually compare budgets of any kind, the US budget for most programs far exceed that of any other nation due to the vast differences in national wealth)the United States doesn't even make the top 10.
Rank Country Military expenditure, 2009[2] % of GDP, 2008
94 Eritrea 327,000,000d 20.9%d
78 Georgia 665,000,000 8.5%
8 Saudi Arabia 39,257,000,000 8.2%
41 Oman 4,003,000,000 7.7%
17 Israel 14,309,000,000 7.0%
86 Chad 412,000,000 6.6%
19 United Arab Emirates 13,052,000,000a 5.9%a
66 Jordan 1,392,000,000 5.9%
43 Iraq 3,814,000,000 5.4%
54 Sudan 1,971,000,000c 4.4%c
1 United States 663,255,000,000 4.3%
Also, you must keep in mind that we are at war, and we have a significantly more land to protect than most nations. Also the US DOD R&D provides many breakthroughs that improve quality of life. Also the US guarantees protection for many of its allies such as Taiwan and Japan. Also the US is typically an early adopter of new technologies whereas other countries tend to wait, which drives costs up. Also keep in mind that a powerful military is a good deterrent to help prevent wars of aggression against us. If Germany's neighbors and an army equivalent or superior to Germany then WWII may have never happened.
The nukes being destroyed are based on an older technology or have passed their life expectancy, and as such they are destroyed and recycled. Some (not all) of the destroyed nukes are replaced by newer weapons.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
What about the conflict between Russian and Georgia from 2008 - current? What about Iran-Iraq, Iraq-Saudia Arabia in the late 1990s? What about the warin the Gaza strip between Palestine and Israel? What about the threat of war from Iran against Israel and its allies (including the US.) What about PROC (China) threats to reclaim ROC (Taiwan)? What about N. Koreas continued threats to global peace? How about the conflict between Pakistan and India that resulted in a nuclear arms race that still continues? Not sure if this is considered an active war, but the two sides do occasionally fire upon each other.
Granted you may not consider all of these nations "civilized," but I suppose that is dependant upon how you define civilized. If you mean Westernized then I suppose Israel is the only one (perhpas Taiwan to some extent.)
Wars do not happen in Western Europe because the neighbors share linked economies and war would likely cripple the entire continent. There of course would also be repurcussions including heavy sanctions or war from the US in the event of an attack a Western European nation. Japan also enjoys the guarantee of protection from the US which deters others from a war of aggression.
My point regarding post WWI Europe was to indicate that without the threat of a strong opposing force war is much more likely. War is inevitable and is likely continue to happen for the remainder of the human race. Why you ask? Read a history book.
Also Japan attacked the US because of economic pressures and impediments to its war efforts as the result of a US naval blockade of Japanese ports, restricting the flow of much needed oil into Japan. This is not very different from economic sanctions we place on many nations today. Any one of these nations could attack the US if we were to abandon national defense.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
No we wouldn't, that is not what I am trying to say. If we were to end operations in Iraq and Afghanistan the national defense budget would be reduced by half.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
I support the war in Afghanistan, but was never convinced that war was necessary in Iraq. Regardless, once we became involved (in both) I feel that it would be reckless to just pull out. This would likely cause more harm to the region than staying and providing security until a government is formed that is capable of securing its own borders and protecting its citizens.
I missed answering your earlier question where you asked if more wealth justified more money spent on defense, to which my reply is absolutely yes. The more wealth you have the more you should invest to protect that wealth. If you had a studio apartment with a mattress sitting on a box spring on the floor, a 13" television set, and some cutlery pots pans etc, then you could not really justify spending an inordinate amount of money on home security outside of maybe renters insurance. If you on the other hand had a half million dollar house, 2 luxury vehicles, state of the art consumer devices/appliances etc, a wife and 3 kids then you would probably be more willing to spend thousands of dollars on a security system. If you had a multi-million dollar estate you might even be able to justify actual security (but probably not.) I think the same principle applies to national security. Bottom line, the more you have the more you stand to lose, the more you should invest to protect it.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
First, the house example was an analogy to illustrate my point, that is that the more you have the more you stand to lose. And the US may be in debt but that is because of reckless spending (not just national defense) but still considered a wealthy nation in terms of industrial capacity, land, and interests across the globe. The most common measure of a nations wealth is its GDP, for which the US is the world leader and accounts for almost 25% globally.
Second, the deficit in the budget is more than double what is spent on national defense, and has increased over $3 trillion in the last 2 years. So if we completely stopped all spending on national defense the deficit would continue to grow. Over 37% of the national debt is the loss of tax revenue as a direct result of the recession.
I am not saying that some cuts cannot be made, I am sure some reduction in spending is in order, but not to the magnitude of 25% - 50%. The money being used for national defense also creates thousands of public and private sector jobs.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
Thank you! You admitted it!
The cuts I am referring to are improvements in the procurement process, and not so much in regards to weapons, munitions, or vehicles. I take it you suggest we should just let our aircraft, tanks, and naval vessels rot and never replace aging craft with modern ones? Perhaps we would be better off with the single propeller Mustangs of the mid 40s? As well as the defenseless bombers, and the slow cumbersone high maintance destroyers from WWII? Modern aircraft improve upon stealth and the invention of the worlds only stealth attack fighter. Passive radar systems, voice activated HUDs and ECM (electronic counter measure)controls, LPI (low probabilty of intercept) active radars, and hundreds of other high tech improvements that protect our pilots. I am not as familar with naval and ground vehicles, but I am sure vast improvements have been made there as well since the 40s. Improvements in missile designs and guidance controllers have improved our weapons range and accuracy, ultimately saving money and protecting the lives of the citizens in the nations we are at war with.
National defense is the biggest welfare program!!!!! That's all it is! Those "jobs" you refer to are WELFARE. They are useless.
The jobs it creates include many engineers that create new breakthroughs that eventually trickle down to improve consumer products. DOD R&D directly resulted in the internet that enables us to have this discussion and more easily research this information. The creation of the worlds only current fully operational GPS system that is available for consumers, improvements in RADAR and LASER that made them effective for law enforcement, improvements in personal defense including flak jackets and bullet proof vests to protect the same, running of lines to Europe and eventually Asia to make overseas calls possible and affordable, refinements in oil processing, satellites in general, improvements in short range and long range communication and devices that eventually allowed the birth of the cellular and satellite phones, planning for the interstate highway system, nuclear power technology, encryption algorithms, and millions of other things you or someone you know probably uses frequently are all direct results of these "welfare" jobs. The US DOD has one of the biggest R&D budgets, and this invariably result in huge advancements in technology for the civilian sector.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
I did not say we cannot cut the budget because of the inventions, it was merely a counter to your opinion that military spending creates only "useless welfare jobs."
I actually provided multiple reasons why drastic cuts to the defense budget is not wise and would not solve budget issues.
1. Half of the budget is being used for ongoing wars and operations overseas, leaving these regions before allowing a government to secure its own borders would be unwise and could destabalize the whole region.
2. A large portion of the budget is used for R&D which improves safety for our combatants, and reduces collateral damage while striking the enemy. This ultimately saves money in the event of a large scale war as we will be less likley to lose vehicles and personell
3. A large army is a great deterrent. It also allows us to put pressure on countries such as N. Korea and Iran that are intent on creating nuclear weapons along with medium range and ballistic missiles, and also have expressed intent to use these weapons.
4. The US guarantees protection for several countries, including those that would have difficulty defending itself (Taiwan is a great example as China has expressed its intent to reclaim it as part of the PROC)
5. By % of GDP the US does not make the top 10 for largest defense budget. It is higher than the global total, but if you were to remove funding for the wars we are engaged in it would be completely equal.
6. The budget deficit is greater than 2 times the annual budget for the military, so even a complete stoppage of defense spending would not resolve the budget crisis.
So far the only countering point you have made is "that's stupid" and national debt. I have countered every point you have tried to make, and you have responded directly to none of mine. Now that you have run out of recycled lines to spit out, you turn to insults as an desperate, immature way to express your point. All this and you claim I have failed to develop a frontal lobe? My opinion comes from a carefully researched position, and the research was collected from multiple sources. It may be correct, it may not, but at least I can clearly articulate the reasons why and defend my position. How about you?
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
First, I am not a fortune teller. Second you are again focusing on one point. Third we could not maintain overseas operations with a defense budget cut in half. Fourth if Iran or N Korea develop a long range ballistic missile then it is very possible. If not the US mainland, then US interests and bases abroad (won't even need icbms for that.)
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
Probably the same reason we have troops anywhere else in the world.
After the Cold War ended, the United States kept troops in Europe largely for two reasons—to maintain a tangible security commitment to Europe and NATO, and because it foresaw future conflicts in the Middle East and anticipated that it would be useful to have troops stationed in Europe that could respond quickly. American troops were kept in Asia to deter a North Korean invasion of South Korea and to promote stability in East Asia.
Again, deterrent, and defense for our allies. If conflict did emerge, it would take a long time to get troops from US soil to Europe. By the way the troops in Europe have been there since WWII and we actually decreased troops in Europe during President George W. Bush's presidency (about 70,000 or so.)
reply
share
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
Relations with Russia may have improved, but they aren't exactly great. There is still Iran, and if we went to war there we would probably stage out of Europe. A lot can happen in 12 hours (which btw the flight would be atleast 15 hours, and thats just flight time, we would be lucky to have troops there within 24 hours, with 36 being much more likely) including the loss of important strategic points and the death of thousands of innocent allied civilians and service members.
By the way, distance from US to Haiti, <700 Miles. Distance from US to Europe, 4850 mi.
Regardless, your insistent use of personal insults has proven to me your lack of knowledge on the subject. I will not respond to your next comment.
reply
share
PolyofOz
14 years ago
Only by half as many!
Half of zero......
But that's not the point. The point is that over a $trillion a year is spent on so-called defence [yeah, I don't use American spellings, mostly], and war industries. Why is this necessary? $½ trillion a year every year is enough to fund most of the philanthropic needs of most of the world. $½ trillion ought also to fund all of the US's truly necessary defence needs. It's surely more sensible to give away that amount to billions of people, rather than share it among a few mega-corporations and bloated plutocrats, surely? An Africa with schools and clinics and roads and fresh water is an Africa that won't have in its hand a begging bowl or an AK47, but a warm handshake and an interest in buying even American goods. And you're far less likely to have planes thrown at buildings.
Security involves a little less inequality, of wealth AND opportunity. Actually, a lot less... The US is prepared to spend $trillion annually. Spend it once, but spend it well. Spending it rationally needs to be considered as a practical way of increasing world security. And in that safer world, military spending will be necessarily lower anyway.
High military budgets promote war and unrest and the likelihood of war.
** I stopped offering my 2 cents worth when they rounded it down to nothing. **
reply
share
richard-goodenough
14 years ago
I can actually (partially) agree with what you said above. I agree that granting aid money to under-developed nations will reduce the amount of infighting and civil wars in those areas of the world, and will provide much needed humanitarian support for their citizens.
However, the money (in the amount you mention above) would not be just a one time payment but addition to annual spending. It would build a great foundation and move those areas of the world in to the right direction, but as with all infrastucture needs, maintenance is required (and expensive.) This would likely be in addition to and not in replacement of defense (sorry I spell it the American way :))spending. Plus there would still always be accusations that the funding is given to "greedy multinational American corparations" for the sake of turning a profit (someone has to build the roads, provide healthcare, etc.) and the US would be accused of spending the money purely for political and financial gains (which, lets be honest, would likely be the reason for the spending.)
Furthermore, as I stated previously half of the defense budget is spent on on-going operations abroad, including war and rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to fund US bases abroad. I already justified, or at least rationalized, the reasons for the many US bases so I won't touch on that again, but a lot of the remaining balance is spent to modernize the Armed Forces, overhaul aging ships, etc. etc.
All in all as I stated previously I would not object process refinement, procurement improvements, and other gained efficiencies to help reduce the overall defense budget. After the budget deficit is closed I would also greatly support additional spending to stabilize regions of the world that are underdeveloped and under the constant threat of prolonged conflicts. I think we could all agree that we would love to see a day when wars were not fought and defense spending was entirely unnecessary, but we are not there today and I do not think it is a realistic expectation that it will be seen in the future. For as long as there have been humans on this planet, there has been war and conflict.
reply
share
met76
10 years ago
Wars do not happen in Western Europe because the neighbors share linked economies and war would likely cripple the entire continent.
Um...wars do not happen in Western Europe because its nations have their conflicts settled and are mostly in really good relationships and their today's disagreements are far not grave enough to cause war. That, and they share linked economies.
reply
share
richard-goodenough
10 years ago
This was a very old discussion, but I got the notification so I will respond regardless.
In regards to Western Europe, they have settled their conflicts multiple times throughout history but that certainly did not mean they had seen the end of war, nor have they seen it now. Once there is a significant enough shift in balance of power, with reduced influence from a global or regional superpower and the correct political landscape; war will return to the region. It will not likely happen within the next few decades, but it will happen again unless the human race dies out before then.
For reference one only needs to look at the global political landscape from the late 1800s to 1940 and the circumstances that led up to the both World Wars.
reply
share
met76
10 years ago
For reference one only needs to look at the global political landscape from the late 1800s to 1940 and the circumstances that led up to the both World Wars.
Taking past events as an indication to what will or will not happen in the future may not be successful all the time. Perhaps humanity can evolve to something better than it was in the past...in some areas of the world it already has.
reply
share
richard-goodenough
10 years ago
True enough, however the past indicates that periods of peace and temporary settlement of conflicts does not preclude hostile acts or war in the future. In fact, history has shown that with a high degree of probability that is outright false. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
reply
share