Military spending out of control?

WickedLou9 · 02-07-2008, 10:17 AM

There was a story on NPR this morning, maybe some of you heard it... Bush's proposed defense budget would put us at a spending level that is the highest level it has been since the end of WW2, and yes that figure is adjusted for inflation... How the hell? And I think they said that we have the smallest military in terms of personel that we have had since WW2. So we are paying a shit ton more and getting alot less.

We are not fighting the soviets anymore. F-22 raptors don't work well against terrorists. Our troops still need better equipment.

Our country is totally broken.
We still have not caught Bin Laden. The Taliban is gaining strength in Afghanastan.... are they just lighting the money on fire over there or what?

Interesting factoid. The Pentagon has a bigger budget than Australia.

7960 · 02-07-2008, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So we are paying a shit ton more and getting alot less.

Uh, no. They didn't have stealth boats and satellites and remote control planes that work from halfway around the world. We're not getting "a lot less." What we're getting is different.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Interesting factoid. The Pentagon has a bigger budget than Australia.

So?

WickedLou9 · 02-07-2008, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Uh, no. They didn't have stealth boats and satellites and remote control planes that work from halfway around the world. We're not getting "a lot less." What we're getting is different.

Alot of that stuff is now pretty much useless since the USSR has fallen. The biggest global threat we face today is terrorism and small "rogue" nations like Iran. Sure we have alot of fancy new toys but after WW2 we had a lot of fancy new toys as well that were cutting edge technology for thier time. I don't think we are getting the same value for what we spend. There is alot more waste today, there is alot more pet project spending, spending on specific military projects that benefit congressional districts because maybe Lockheed martin has a large plant somewhere...

WickedLou9 · 02-07-2008, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

So?

It was just an illustration to provide scale. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined spends on thier militaries. 3/4's of a Trillion dollars is the number from this proposed budget. How can we justify spending at WW2 levels?

7960 · 02-07-2008, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Alot of that stuff is now pretty much useless since the USSR has fallen.

If it's useless then why are we using it in iraq and afghanistan?

The biggest global threat we face today is terrorism and small "rogue" nations like Iran. Sure we have alot of fancy new toys but after WW2 we had a lot of fancy new toys as well that were cutting edge technology for thier time. I don't think we are getting the same value for what we spend.

Value for what we spend is a different issue.

There is alot more waste today, there is alot more pet project spending, spending on specific military projects that benefit congressional districts because maybe Lockheed martin has a large plant somewhere...

I agree with this 100%.

WickedLou9 · 02-07-2008, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

If it's useless then why are we using it in iraq and afghanistan?

Value for what we spend is a different issue.

I agree with this 100%.

That's the thing. We AREN'T using it. The F22 has never flown a single mission. they cost how much a few hundred million per plane? Development costs are into the 10's of billions of dollars. It has never flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanastan.

7960 · 02-07-2008, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's the thing. We AREN'T using it. The F22 has never flown a single mission. they cost how much a few hundred million per plane? Development costs are into the 10's of billions of dollars. It has never flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanastan.

we aren't using that plane...we are using everything else I mentioned in that post, and more.

7960 · 02-07-2008, 11:29 AM

wait, don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with this "There is alot more waste today, there is alot more pet project spending, spending on specific military projects that benefit congressional districts because maybe Lockheed martin has a large plant somewhere..."

but to say "I think they said that we have the smallest military in terms of personel that we have had since WW2. So we are paying a shit ton more and getting alot less." is wrong.

WickedLou9 · 02-07-2008, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

wait, don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with this "There is alot more waste today, there is alot more pet project spending, spending on specific military projects that benefit congressional districts because maybe Lockheed martin has a large plant somewhere..."

but to say "I think they said that we have the smallest military in terms of personel that we have had since WW2. So we are paying a shit ton more and getting alot less." is wrong.

I just don't see it. Look at our military at the height of the cold war. It was massive. Both in terms of people and technology. We had state of the art everything. We had massive nuclear arsenals, we had tanks coming out of our asses. We were literally bristling with weaponry and military might.
And we were somehow spending less then then we are now. Even with the base closures and smaller military.

thewise1 · 02-07-2008, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Interesting factoid. The Pentagon has a bigger budget than Australia.

For the first time since I've left the other place, I wish I could post and lord this over wdywtk

thewise1 · 02-07-2008, 12:09 PM

As for the F22 - you will be glad we have it when ET comes down here and tries to kick all y'all asses, aiight?

WickedLou9 · 02-07-2008, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

For the first time since I've left the other place, I wish I could post and lord this over wdywtk

LOL.. yeah really.

Publius · 02-07-2008, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

As for the F22 - you will be glad we have it when ET comes down here and tries to kick all y'all asses, aiight?

thewise1 · 02-07-2008, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

[i][/g]

Stylerod · 02-07-2008, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There was a story on NPR this morning, maybe some of you heard it... Bush's proposed defense budget would put us at a spending level that is the highest level it has been since the end of WW2, and yes that figure is adjusted for inflation... How the hell? And I think they said that we have the smallest military in terms of personel that we have had since WW2. So we are paying a shit ton more and getting alot less.

We are not fighting the soviets anymore. F-22 raptors don't work well against terrorists. Our troops still need better equipment.

Our country is totally broken.
We still have not caught Bin Laden. The Taliban is gaining strength in Afghanastan.... are they just lighting the money on fire over there or what?

Interesting factoid. The Pentagon has a bigger budget than Australia.

I did hear that. They made a lot of good points but also some stupid ones.

Is the F-22 Necessary, debatable. Yes, we aren't in a war with Russia, China or North Korea. But does that mean we never will be? It's always better to out gun your future opponents now rather then later.

Troops can always use better equipment. They said that troops were going in without armor and that isn't the case. Was every soldier given a flak jacket going into Iraq? No, but every soldier that went on patrol was.

And I still think Osama is already dead

But is the Pentagon extremely bloated? You betcha. As is ALL of government.

7960 · 02-07-2008, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Is the F-22 Necessary, debatable.

The thing is, development was started in the early '80s. When they said it cost "X billions" a significant amount was when there were more threats of conventional warfare.

As the chances of type of war it woudl be used in decreased so did the order. They were originally going to buy 700+ and ended up buying a little over 300. Do we need 300? In today's environment, probably not. But it's not like in 2005 someone said "we need teh new jet!" and now they're ordering billions of dollars worth.

Stylerod · 02-07-2008, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

The thing is, development was started in the early '80s. When they said it cost "X billions" a significant amount was when there were more threats of conventional warfare.

As the chances of type of war it woudl be used in decreased so did the order. They were originally going to buy 700+ and ended up buying a little over 300. Do we need 300? In today's environment, probably not. But it's not like in 2005 someone said "we need teh new jet!" and now they're ordering billions of dollars worth.

We probably did need a new gen jet though. The current state of the art plane is the F-15 and it was designed in the early 70's.

And the pentagon has cancelled popular programs that they felt actually weren't needed. Like the stealthy Commache attack helicoptor. Democrat's and Republicans alike were EXTREMELY pissed about that one because their states lost a lot of potential money and jobs.

nbiggershaft · 02-07-2008, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Alot of that stuff is now pretty much useless since the USSR has fallen. The biggest global threat we face today is terrorism and small "rogue" nations like Iran. Sure we have alot of fancy new toys but after WW2 we had a lot of fancy new toys as well that were cutting edge technology for thier time. I don't think we are getting the same value for what we spend. There is alot more waste today, there is alot more pet project spending, spending on specific military projects that benefit congressional districts because maybe Lockheed martin has a large plant somewhere...

I'd actually claim that the opposite is true, do you have any reasoning for saying that higher tech military works better against the USSR than less advanced enemies?

avsp · 02-07-2008, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I'd actually claim that the opposite is true, do you have any reasoning for saying that higher tech military works better against the USSR than less advanced enemies?

What use is an advanced air superiority fighter to fight terrorists?
Its very existance make asymetric warfare more appealing to potential enemies

OTOH thats not whats its for anyway & best prepared etc

The cost/benefit problems arise out of ever higher capbilities & is a diminshing returns marginal thing.

I doubt the usefullness of supersonic vectoring as the G are too great for the pilot to really withstand IIUC

Eitherway unmanned stuff seems to be the favoured way forward but they've an inbuilt achilles heel anyway.

The hi-tech way to fight an to fight asymetrically is with nano tech cyber-insects but they're a way off yet, ..., probably