Does the USA need a military as big as it has now?

[Omega State]

The US should reduce military investment and increase science investiment.

The DoD is responsible for quite a bit of science funding.

Just, uh, perhaps not the type you'd prefer.

I understood what you meant. "Military science"

[Thanatttynia]

As a selfish non-American citizen knowing we would be a lot worse off in a world dominated by countries other than America, yes. But money works differently in America there's so much of it; I don't see that downsizing the military would even be required in order to keep the deficit at a relatively stable level and still be able to introduce reforms for the American citizen, provided they started to actually tax people. You have to also keep in mind the positive effects the military-industrial complex has on the US economy.

Now what would be great would be if they found a way to fight their never-ending war in a way that didn't actually result in the mass loss of human life or the destabilisation of entire parts of the world.

[Mystic Warriors]

Yes, and if you like the current status quo in the world and wish to see it remain it needs be even more well funded and slightly larger.

No, just no. It's the large military that threatens it. If and when the USA collapses no army is going to save it. So no. Massively cut defense spending and focus on health care, education, infrastructure and the environment.

[Zurkerx]

While spending does need to be cut, I'm not sure 33% would be viable. I support like a 10-15% cut, but either cutting/increasing spending won't solve the problems of a bloated, bureaucratic entity that needs substantial reforms.

[Thermodolia]

I’m going to be brief. But GOD said in the Ten Commandments THOU SHALT NOT KILL. And that is the end of all arguments about militaries. No nation should have weapons. The weaponization of people against people is when man truly sinned the first time.

And why should I care?

[Luziyca]

No. I'd probably reduce it to about 5% of America's spending.

[Thermodolia]

No. I'd probably reduce it to about 5% of America's spending.

Have fun with a Chinese dominated world. I hope you like being monitored by their social credit system

[El-Amin Caliphate]

A country only needs its military to be large enough for defense. Not to preemptively attack other nations

[Uxupox]

No. I'd probably reduce it to about 5% of America's spending.

boko haram's wet dream.

[Distruzio]

Yes.

Audit the spending and then increase it, as well.

[Loben]

Restart F-22 production.

[Page]

Just imagine what could have been done had we never invaded and occupied Iraq. Annulment of all student loan debts, funds for universal health care, investment in renewable energy, rebuilding our failing infrastructure. But nope, we sunk trillions of dollars in a war of aggression and all we have to show for it is the creation of ISIS from the power vacuum.

[Loben]

Worth it.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

A large, influential nation needs a large, powerful military to protect it. That being said, we are currently spending far more than we need to in order to maintain military supremacy. There is no country on Earth capable of going to war with us and emerging victorious simply because we could either outlast them or steamroll over them assuming we put in enough effort into either. We are perfectly safe from invasion, a fact which is backed up by the presence of our nuclear arsenal. No one in their right mind would invade the US, and no one has the logistical capability to do so either.

One any of those facts change, it will be a different story, but until that time we can afford to cut defense spending and pouring funding into other domestic areas to improve the overall quality of life in the USA, which is currently not meeting the potential it could be meeting. I support the military, I support having a larger military than most, but right now we're spending too much on the military. Only two out of a hundred and ninety something nations on Earth come close to posing a direct military threat to the US, neither of which even have the capability to launch an aggressive campaign against us and emerge victorious.

Life in America is pretty good, but it could be even better if the government would pour more money into other sectors other than defense. God knows education, infrastructure, and healthcare could use an overall in this country.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

At it’s current size, the US Armed Forces isn’t really all that big and seems proportional to the nations size and population. What’s absurdly big is its budget, and I’m not entirely convinced it even needs to be $700+ billion dollars, especially since there’s plenty of conflicting talk on whether it’s enough. If $700+ billion dollars isn’t enough, then what is? $1 trillion, $2 trillion?

[Loben]

Tbh i swear most of tge 700 billion figure is upkeep and r&d.

[Page]

Tbh i swear most of tge 700 billion figure is upkeep and r&d.

A not insignificant amount of that figure also includes bombing 7 different countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia)

[Len Hyet]

US Military Spending as a function of GDP is about as low as its been since the end of World War Two, 3.1%, which is lower than some nations like Russia. Not the lowest, and yes it's high I'm not arguing that, but it's not unreasonable or out of the ordinary.

Fully 25% of this is just wages (Table 5.1). The big evil "procurement" that everyone says is the driver of military spending, isn't. It's 16% of the total budget, and that's probably more than the Russians or the Chinese pay. But that's because procurement isn't on the open market. The US DoD, for obvious reasons, gets its equipment from American suppliers. That means that you're paying for American wages, not Russian or Chinese wages.

The biggest expenditure, 43%, is Operations and Maintenance. Which means that almost half of the US Military's Budget goes directly into what you'd think it does. It goes into anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia, the ones that keep free trade moving. It goes into policing the Straight of Hormuz, and making sure Iran doesn't play any fuck-fuck games with it. It goes into 50,000 US soldiers keeping the North Koreans from steamrolling Seoul.

A lot of military waste comes from political fuckery. Example: Sequestration. During Sequestration a hold was put on training new replacement pilots for the fleet. Okay, well now you have a bunch of people that we have already invested easily $1,000,000 into, each, twiddling their thumbs. In the Navy a pilot serves a 3 year tour, then instructs for 3 years. Suddenly the balance is off because of sequestration, and now you have a bunch of instructors with nobody to teach, and a shortage of combat pilots.

A lot of the US military's equipment is old. Older than the people using them, sometimes pieces of hardware have the longest service life out of any person in a unit. The US has over 370 KC-135s, last built 1965.

To reference the inevitable "but Eisenhower said" that comes up every damn time:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

The United States regularly engages in full-spectrum war across the entire globe. We are committed, by treaty, to defend more than a third of the world. I am not exaggerating. The US is legally obligated to defend 69 of the worlds 195 countries, which constitute 25% of the world's population and 75% of the world economic output. We need a big goddamn military to even seriously consider fulfilling our duties to NATO, much less the OAS.

Of course if you'd prefer the United States didn't have that kind of relationship with the world cough cough Trump, then yes the US Military's spending could be slashed. But as it is? We can barely fulfill our demands.

Here is a report from 2006. You will note from the graph, we have been spending less as a percentage of GDP since 2006. Some key notes:

• Army Doctrine holds that 2 units be held in reserve for rest and training for every 1 deployed. As of the writing of this report, there is 1 held in reserve for every unit deployed. This is unsustainable long-term.
  
• Army Units are being increasingly "short-cycled", that is, instead of having 1 year deployment, 1 year return and reset, 1 year training for deployment, they are being redeployed less than a year after return instead of after the full 2 years recommended.
  
• 75% of Combat Support Units are required to pull personnel from other units to make do. That is to say, they're understaffed and having to use people who are not trained for this job to do the job.
  
• Of 341,000 National Guard soldiers in-uniform, 50,000 are even available for mobilization, and only about 5,000 are ranked what would traditionally be considered deployable.
  
• I make that bet, because 1/2 of all Army units have received the lowest possible readiness rating. Before 9/11 only 20% of Army units received such a score.
  
• These low ratings are caused by severe equipment shortages, with many units having to use equipment left in-country by whatever unit they are replacing. Such equipment is worn-out, battle-stressed, and has not received proper maintenance. People die because of this.
  
• Lack of funding has created massive backlogs at every major US logistics station, accounting for over 600 M1 Abrams, 700 Bradley IFVs, 2,600 Humvees, and tens of thousands of rifles and communication sets are gathering dust because there aren't enough people to get them patched up and sent out to their units

[Hamstan]

I just don't like the idea of us being the only strongman. Other nations need to learn how to make their own armies and not come crying to Uncle Sam when the Ruskies start knocking at their door. We can't be the lone superpower forever. Something has to give eventually.

[The Burke Islands]

I believe that all NATO nations should adjust their military spending to account for 2% of their national GDPs.

[South Acren]

I think the US military needs to be bigger and more advanced. Contrary to all the jokes about the Military being useless, we do need a Military. Let me remind you all, not everything can be solved through diplomacy. Anyone know why hitler gained control over Europe? Its because they (Being Great Britain, France, ECT) tried to be diplomatic. And now adays we dont have to worry about hitler but now its Kim Jon Un, The Taliban, and basically the entire middle east. Its at least good to have something to fight against them, just in case the need arrives.

[Loben]

Tbh i swear most of tge 700 billion figure is upkeep and r&d.

A not insignificant amount of that figure also includes bombing 7 different countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia)

Bombs have a shelf life, and we are still at war with the Taliban.

[The Great-German Empire]

I think that the current budget is definitely sufficient; Maybe a bit overdone, but not by much. It should, however, be re-focused toward new innovations and continental protection, including and prioritizing nuclear defense, instead of "protecting allies". With respect to allies, I believe there should be a Vietnamization-style general pullout while leaving for the European countries to fill in and utilize the bases left by the US military, perhaps pay the Europeans forward so they have an easier time adjusting. The Navy's size must be kept up to maintain full naval supremacy, because in the current climate it is both possible and necessary.

Also, your "Imperial Germany" argument is a load of bollocks. Short of sacrificing some of its territories like Alsace, which the Germans considered theirs with rather valid reasons, there was no way whatsoever Imperial Germany could avoid being ganged up on. Britain hated the idea of a Central European superpower, and both Germany and its main ally Austria had a lot of things that other people wanted. It would take a diplomatic mastermind the caliber of Bismarck, along with a less loudmouthed Willy, to avoid the two-front meat grinder the Germany found herself in.
On the converse, I might add, it would only take NOT entering Belgium to avoid a British entry early in the war, which would allow for a German victory in the colonies and an easier, Eastern front, with France left for last - again, nothing to do with keeping or not keeping a large army.

[Hamstan]

I think the US military needs to be bigger and more advanced. Contrary to all the jokes about the Military being useless, we do need a Military. Let me remind you all, not everything can be solved through diplomacy. Anyone know why hitler gained control over Europe? Its because they (Being Great Britain, France, ECT) tried to be diplomatic. And now adays we dont have to worry about hitler but now its Kim Jon Un, The Taliban, and basically the entire middle east. Its at least good to have something to fight against them, just in case the need arrives.

And you want to know a reason why the Great War started?
Militarism.
You wan't to know how the Nazi's took over Europe?
They had one of the most advanced armies of the world at the time.
You think the US stands for freedom?
Then why do we monitor millions of private conversations in the name of "anti-terrorism"?
And you want to know how it went the last few times we went to war to fight "them", just in case?
The 8th Army got routed in Korea. We lost 60,000 men and boys in Vietnam for absolutely nothing. We invaded Iraq and left it in a state worse off than it was when we arrived.
And they say Big-Stick diplomacy works.

[The Serbian Empire]

How else will we export freedom?

Pragmatic diplomacy, pragmatic interventionism, without being impulsive and reckless.

A lot harder to project power with words without the weaponry to back it up. Still, the military is oversized given the lack of naval capabilities from the Chinese and Russians mean that our geography alone is a weapon in its own right.