What are your thoughts on the US, cutting military spending in half, for a couple years?

The Republicans will have none of that.
same as wealthy industrialists .
And where would the money go, Gasp! Not universal health care.
Not paying down the debt.

@MrGrimm888 Who started that rumor ?

^What rumor?

The US spends more than the other countries, by far.

But you guys are the worlds police man, and if you don’t big bad Russia ,or China will come and take over the world.

No. Such drastic cuts to anything will have serious consequences. I don’t oppose reducing the military budget, but not by that much that suddenly.

The US doesn’t have to spend a lot on defence as geographically it is one of the safest countries in the world. It has the Atlantic Ocean on one side and the Pacific on the other and Canada to the north. Money allocated to “defence” is actually used to project American power across the world to the remotest areas of the planet. That’s the first thing.

Secondly the amount allocated to “defence” is ridiculously high, nearly $700 billion in fiscal year 2019 which is as much as the total expenditure of the next 15 highest spending countries combined. Let’s say we half that amount, saving $350 billion per year. That is enough to give every man, woman and child in the United States $1,000 per year which would help protect them from poverty, hunger and ill health while still upholding the country’s security.

A third point is that the chief value of the military is in supporting American foreign policy and American foreign policy is so hopelessly muddled and ill-defined just now that the money is wasted.

My response would be have you seen the budget (free) and if so which line items would you cut or reduce? Just a few years ago some of our soldiers had subpar equipment (documentary), so its a touchy subject.

Additionally, unless you have full security knowledge, I dont believe anyone here could give you a realistic or knowledgable answer.

Here’s a DOD press release outlining some highlights of the 2019 budget.

There’s new equipment, maintenance of old equipment, plus personnel to think of.

Personally, I know it’s all expensive but I like feeling secure, and knowing that if North Korea or any of those countries feels like pulling some shit, we’re ready, willing and able to deal with it.

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1438798/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2019-budget-proposal/

Is this question hypothetical? I have not seen any indication that the military budget will be cut by 50%. 2.3% cut for 2020 is the highest I can find.

2020 budget highlights, DOD press release (I haven’t read it yet as I’m trying to get ready for work):

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1782623/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2020-budget-proposal/

@KNOWITALL “Just a few years ago some of our soldiers had subpar equipment ”

One could easily quadruple our budget for equipping the troops and still manage to slash the military budget in half. The F-35 development is a perfect example of where all of the money goes. This is not about supporting the troops, this is about funneling billions to the military industrial complex that in-turn make campaign donations. I assure you that any shortfalls for the troops are the result of the military prioritizing other projects at the expense of the troops.

For example, why the hell are we not equipping our troops and then building this fucking thing?

We could indeed cut the budget, in half, and still be one of the most powerful militaries, in the world. Plis, as mentioned above, the US, is no danger of land invasion.
Think of all of the possibilities, that that money could do…

If we cut it in half, even for a couple years, we could drastically change the country, for the better. Our infrastructure, comes to mind first, to me. I don’t recall the numbers, or the source, but hundreds of bridges, are in dire need of repair. Using the money to fix them, would also create jobs. Plus, California, a state that makes more money than most countries, is on fire.

We could build levies, around the biggest cities in danger of being underwater, in 50 years.

The money could drastically prepare the country, for the future environment.

@flutherother . If we gave $1,000 , to every American, most would spend it. It would boost the economy, and save lots of dying businesses…

@KNOWITALL . A lot of the military spending, is going into maintaining our nuclear arsenal. All of our missile silos, need immediate maintenance.

@goillapaws . Correct. The F-35, is a perfect example. So is the “thing.”

IMO, if America changed it’s diplomatic strategy, we’d be in much better shape. In SO many ways. We’d save thousands of people’s lives, including our own people.

I just read an article about a $13 billion aircraft carrier, being made serviceable. The Chinese, and Russians, have developed weapons capable of blowing up our carriers. Carrier groups, are meant to own the seas. And that worked, for a while. It seems like a waste of money, to me, now.
Why make a vessel, that can be taken out, with a missile? If the US, stayed out of other country’s business, we’d be fine, and wouldn’t need such war machines.

I think the US, would do well, without getting involved in other country’s shit…

There is no country, that could invade us. Even civilians are armed, to the teeth. An invasion, would be impossible.We would be a ridiculous opponent, to try and tackle. I think we should be like Switzerland. Get ourselves, out of any military conflicts, and dare another country from trying to invade us. They will be crushed by us.

I’d like us to pull out of every country, and let them fend for themselves. They would have to.

Let the world play out, just like it did, before America.

We don’t need allies. Especially if we put all our cards, on our table.There is no one, who could successfully fight us, with all our military here. And if they somehow defeated our military, they are going to have to go house to house. With most of us armed. There’s no way that would work. They would lose. IF, we let them cross on of the huge oceans between us, without taking them out, before they got here.

The military budget could be cut to nothing, and we’d still have an extreme advantage.

The Russians, could cross the Arctic Circle, but would have to to go through Canada. Something they could probably do. Then, it’s the US. A different story.

They could nuke us, but that would require a lot of nukes, and basically destroy the world.

The point is, we could hold our own. The Russians, would suffer massive casualties, and the Chinese, can just forget about it. We wouldn’t allow an invaliding force, and would demolish them, at sea.

I see no point in continuing to build the world’s most powerful miiltary, at the expense of its occupation…

@MrGrimm888 “We could indeed cut the budget, in half, and still be one of the most powerful militaries, in the world”

In 2016 the US spent more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the UK, India, Japan, France, Germany, South Korea, Australia, Brazil and Italy… combined. We could cut our budget in half and still be the MOST powerful military in the world, easily.

I wouldn’t just arbitrarily cut spending in half, but like most/all informed intelligent non-corporate humanists (including most even-half-way progressive politicians), yes the US should greatly reduce its military spending.

Probably one of the best ways would involve stopping engaging in endless wars. Keeping the military deployed and active on the far side of the planet is massively expensive.

And, it could stand some reduced expenses in quite a few places.

Certainly its spending could be made a lot more efficient too.

Of course, most such changes will require ending a lot of corporate corruption.

@gorillapaws & @MrGrimm888 With all due respect, I go by facts when it comes to budgets and foreign policy. The article below clearly goes through many factors in determining if we’re spending too much or too little.
(This seems to be an anti-Trump site, so should be acceptable for fluther.)

Strategists and force planners in the Pentagon routinely work through questions including: How many wars does the United States need to be prepared to fight? Against what kinds of adversaries? And does it need to be able to fight them at the same time? How likely do we think these conflicts are? Which ones are more likely, and where can policymakers take some risk? Working through these questions is difficult and time-consuming, and it often occurs behind closed doors, without sufficient consultation between the Defense Department, the White House, and Congress. Moreover, the process must begin all over again if there is a significant change in policy, an altered threat environment, or significant developments in military technology. But the fact remains that the only way to determine how much the country needs to spend on the military is to work through these questions systematically and in detail. Relying on heuristics like how much other countries spend or an arbitrary percentage of GDP is a recipe for a military that is not sized or shaped to the conflicts it will face.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/10/pentagon-defense-budget-trump/

Given correct responsee, we will held accountable for nothing.

There are decisions, that don’t kill people available. In ALL situations…

For the republicans, cutting the manly man military budget is about like cutting inches off of their penis. Not going to happen.

Cut budget by 90%, and it will be closer to appropriate.

@KNOWITALL “shaped to the conflicts it will face.”

Riddle me this. Why are we developing a giant amphibious tracked vehicle that holds 3 tanks? How does that make any sense? Is the next war going to involve traveling back in time to when we needed to land tanks on beaches? I am certain that the next war will involve drones, computers, hacking, precision munitions, gorilla tactics, IEDs and asymmetrical warfare. If the next war involves massive, Normandy beach landings, I will sell my house and give the money to a pro-Trump PAC (or use it to help him pay for the abortions for all of the hookers he knocks up).

In the US, 30–90 thousand Americans die every year due to lack of healthcare (difficult number to estimate). That’s roughly the equivalent of 1 Hiroshima atomic bomb’s worth of American citizens dying every 2–5 years. Do you think we’d be having that many Americans dying every year if we didn’t outspend the next 12 other countries combined every year? There is a huge cost in human lives when the Pentagon decides to promote bloated defense projects at the expense of domestic programs. I know you’re especially concerned with unborn fetuses. Think about how many die each year due to inadequate prenatal care so we can instead fund cost overruns on military projects that never should have been approved in the first place.

@gorillapaws Do you believe you know more than the Defense Dept, White House and Congress?
I do not believe you do, nor do I believe anyone here on fluther does. I don’t mind speculation on threads like these but let’s be realistic, none of us know everything they know, that’s why they vote on it and you do not.

Tbh I don’t use abortion and millions of dead babies to make political points here. But to answer your question it’s the overall neonatal death rate in the US is 1.7 per 1000 births.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2002/09/neonatal-death-risk-effect-prenatal-care-most-evident-after-term-birth

@gorillapaws You made perfect sense.

@KNOWITALL “Do you believe you know more than the Defense Dept, White House and Congress?”

If the military and politicians weren’t ever corrupt and willing to put their own interests ahead of the country then you might have a decent argument. Sadly, this country is full of corruption:

“The last major report on the extent of the revolving door problem, a 2008 Government Accountability Office study, identified 2,435 ex-Pentagon officials who were working for 52 contractors.”

Furthermore, our politicians are bought by these defense contractors.

Do you really believe the DoD is weighing the cost benefit of starting a new weapons program against the reduction in infant mortality if the money was used for something else?

@gorillapaws Sigh. The answer is no, you do not know more than the DOD, WH or Congress.

So you believe everyone is corrupt, I don’t.

Are we done?

I know one thing power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I don’t trust any politician,just some I trust a lot less than others.
You guys could cut your military budget and still have have the biggest military,but that would mean less money in the pockets of wealthy industrialists, and corrupt Rep/cons.
Really? in this day and age you really think you need that track vehicle?

@KNOWITALL: “So you believe everyone is corrupt, I don’t.”

It’s far more than people being corrupt. The whole project is bad. The US military functions as a violent force of state terror. It’s goal is always imperial and is in service to global capitalism.

I think nitpicking the costs associated with US military spending is strange. It’s missing the point. However, any reduction in funding will potentially reduce the ability of the US military to do what it does. And that is a good thing.

@SQUEEKY2 I guess I’m an optimist then, because I don’t believe that everyone up there, Dem or Rep or other, is 100% corrupt.

No offense, but how in the world could a truck driver in Canada know anything about what that vehicle will be used for by the US DoD? Is this your field of expertise?

@hmmmmm I simply disagree.

trump is 100% corrupt.

No can do. Some things can be cut in half like the aid to many of the aid destinations.

Everyone who runs anything, wants the most money they can get. That’s not a very good analogy.

I’m not saying that we cut it in half, forever.

Russia, is probably the biggest threat to the US (militarily.)

China is a growing threat. They just completed an overhaul, on their only aircraft carrier. But experts opine, that it will will take months,to years, to make the training and development possible to make it fully operational. It’s a refit Russian vessel. But the Chinese will need time, to make it an actual threat. They will have to learn how to launch, and recover aircraft. They are developing this, to control the South China Sea, which they recently claimed.
It will be a process of trial and error.

Russia, isn’t currently interested in a land war, in the US. They are a severe threat, to eastern Europe. Not our problem. At least not now. I say, we let those countries develope military, to counter a Russian attack. It’s their problem, not ours.

We could cut our military budget, pull in our troops from other countries, and force them to defend themselves. It would save hundreds of billions of dollars, and keep our boys, out of harms way.

Remember, the US out fought Britain, and Britain was a superpower. It can be done. It takes a lot. But, it can be done.
If Europe puts the money into it, they can stop a Russian invasion. It would take great sacrifice, and it would suck. But they can do it.

Same with the SCS. They could push back China.

Same with South Korea. They would take heavy casualties, but they could withstand an attack, if they put their money, and minds into it…

It’s time to force the birds out of their nests. They can fly.

The US can pull all it’s troops back. Making us indomitable. No one could invade us. Therefore, we could regroup, and become the strongest nation in history.

Let Israel do it’s thing too.

I just don’t see why we have to be in military conflict.

We could bring our nation, into the future, and use all of that money to help ourselves. And after a couple years, we could reassert ourselves, if that’s the thing that the people want…

We bring our boys home. Solidify, our defenses, and let the world take care of itself…

What is the problem there?

@KNOWITALL “I don’t believe that everyone up there, Dem or Rep or other, is 100% corrupt.”

Are you asserting that there are only 2 possibilities?

A. Everyone is 100% and there are programs pushed that are wasteful and not in the country’s best interest.

B. All military programs are in the country’s best interest.

I would assert that there are many who are corrupt (many only 30% corrupt even) and that is sufficient to get stupid programs pushed through. Also, I think there are many who may actually believe they are right, even when they’re not.

Furthermore, I don’t think these DoD leaders are making strategic recommendations with any non-military considerations in mind. For example, if you gave many of them the choice: you can fund the development of the amphibious transport for a year but 15 Americans will die (or whatever the actual number would be) from lack of healthcare that year, that many of them would think the trade off was worth it.

@gorillapaws Actually if you were familiar with politics, you know that a simple majority passes a bill in the House or Senate (51 of 100.) So you are asserting that the majority in both, are corrupt. I just don’t believe that.

If I had to vote on a new dump truck for Public Works, I wouldn’t think of the number of people that money would feed, because it can’t be used for that. Taxpayer funds are strictly regulated, seperate budgets, seperate accounts and issues, per the law.

@KNOWITALL I keep hearing we can’t do Medicare For All because the country can’t afford it. People die, 10’s of thousands per year, because they don’t have health insurance. If you’re the ones making the laws, you can shift spending priorities. Ultimately there is a choice between dump trucks and school lunches, and healthcare, and police, and fire, and teachers, and libraries, and tax cuts for billionaires, etc.

Yes, I do believe that well-over half of the politicians in both parties (at least at the national level) are corrupted by campaign donations and the revolving door. Honestly though, just having influence over the Armed Services Committee is sufficient to have a major impact on the direction of defense spending.

Here’s the secret to knowing if a politician’s bought: follow the money. Is it coming from PACs, large donors? or small individual donors?

@gorillapaws Here’s where you find the US budget. If you choose to go thru it line by line, then email your congressman, you certainly have every right and responsibility to do so.

My own grandparents did every single year and we discussed it as a family (half Dems, half Reps, half hippies…lol)

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/budget

I think Opensecrets tells you even more info. Like I said, follow the money (i.e. where is it coming in from instead of just where is it going to).

Let me add, I do have a lot of respect for your grandparents taking the time to review the budget.

@gorillapaws I think we’re seeing this from two completely different pov’s.

If you have the time or desire, to seriously discuss budget cuts, feel free to read this and write what you’d cut, just as an exercise in actual decision-making. You get a yes vote or a no vote, with discussion allowed, to change the other voters minds.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

Understand that anything you cut from this, still will not go to social programs.

Here is the reality: https://www.governing.com/columns/public-finance/effect-federal-budget-cuts-states-localities.html

How much would we save by eliminating the Marine Corps? and shutting down all but a dozen of our most critical bases overseas?

@MrGrimm888 “Remember, the US out fought Britain, and Britain was a superpower. It can be done. It takes a lot. But, it can be done. ”

No, the US with arms, financial aid and military support from France did. Had France said “not our problem” then history would have written a much different story.

^Correct. France helped. But you are not giving the US, enough credit. Nor the strategic advantage of Britain having to cross the Atlantic Ocean, which was not as easy, as it is today. Plus, France was a regional competitor of Britain and therefore had something to gain. The US, has no regional competition. And it certainly hasn’t gained anything, from our past several military conflicts. WW2, was the last conflict, that we had any interests in.

A. We were obviously attacked by Japan.

B. The Germans, were trying to take over the world. We would have eventually had to get involved.

It’s simple risk, versus reward.

If America did things, just to be the good guys, we would be in dozens of wars. And many people in many parts of the world, don’t want us there.

You are making the classic American mistake, of thinking our way, must be the best way. I’m not being apathetic, I’m being realistic.

Let’s look at the conflicts America has been in since WW2.

Both Koreas, are still technically at war.

Vietnam, was a disaster.

The cold war with Russia almost destroyed the world. If you know your history, you know that all out nuclear war, was narrowly avoided, multiple times. Any future nuclear exchange betweenthe US, and Russia will be a direct result of the arms race.

The first Iraqi war, did not result in regime change.

The second Iraqi war, it could be said, resulted in ISIS.

Afghanistan, hasn’t accomplished anything. Not have our operations in Pakistan.

Syria, is now under Turkish, Russian, and Assad’s regime’s control.

America is in the biggest debt, in history.

What exactly good, came from any of that? Hundreds of thousands are dead. Millions have been displaced. It could easily be argued, that it was our involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, that resulted in 9/11…

Am I missing something?

@MrGrimm888 You’re leaving out all of the chaos we created in Central/South America where we installed pro-American dictators, how we meddled with Iran and the mess that caused, how we supported and trained the Taliban, how our weapon sales in the Middle East (including to Saddam Hussein) have destabilized the region, how our unquestioning support for Israel has lead to gross violations of international law against the Palestinian people. I’m sure I’m forgetting other examples.

^Your leaving out CIA involvement in multiple regime changes in Africa, and an assassination. Who knows what else the US has been responsible for.
I just listed our public conflicts.

Remember, we trained Bin Laden too, because he was fighting Russia, at the time.

The US, has a hand, in many negative things in history.

I think we’d be fine, just leaving the world alone, and I know we’re responsible for the deaths, and ruined lives, of dozens of millions of people.

That’s not even counting how the nation was acquired by genocide, and war. Don’t get me wrong, that’s how most current nations, were built. But the US, has ZERO moral high ground, and no business policing the world. The US, is NOT the “good guys.”

The Iraqi wars, were especially terrible. It was a shooting gallery. They killed thousands of Iraqi troops, mainly with air power.

I read an article about a sort of Iraqi graveyard, of irradiated tanks, and other vehicles. We use depleted uranium tipped bullets, in most of our attack aircraft. It helps penetrate armored vehicles. The US has a superior military, to most in the world. And it uses it, to instill their will on other countries… Not very ethical, is it?

And. We’re the only country to ever use nukes, and we aren’t part of the land mine treaty, or chemical weapons treaty, that many countries are…

It’s no mystery, to me, why so many other countries try to develop WMD technologies. They’re trying to protect themselves from the US…

If we backed off, of our military ways, the world would likely be a more peaceful place. And as we seem to agree on, we could take care of our own people better…