Does the US need more military spending?

[Valkalan]

C'mon battle, you gotta know the brad needs to go, thing throws track all the time. When I was a dismount I was in one that caught fire, from some electrical problem. Trash man. We need more money, and we need to increase the size of personnel. They are handing out chapters like their candy, trying to get rid of people when we should be trying to increase retention, and get more people in, especially in our current world situation.

That's exactly why we should get rid of people. Less people mean more money is available for maintenance and new weapons. It also means it's easier to fire shit soldiers, and retain good ones. While I was in, we had a lot of shit soldiers who sucked at their MOS bullshitting at our company HQ, occasionally working on the newsletter or decorating the Christmas tree and stuff like that. If can't do your MOS well, due to poor work ethic or low skill, you should be fired just like any other job.

[Aclion]

8.5% seems like enough. We should be doing more to ensure we're funding stuff the pentagon actually wants though.

The Pentagon wants more money...

We spend a lot of money on programs the pentagon says it doesn't want, because those programs employee people in districts senators need to stay in office.

[Sanctum and Ultima]

Nope, but a NASA-military collaboration of an orbital bomber against DPRK would be epic and I support the Space Force. I must say, it should be cut only slightly. Keep the 2nd Amendment so that an invasion would be near impossible.

[Purgatio]

Just to clarify something, the OP talks about US allies meeting their treaty obligations, and some of the articles linked make reference to the NATO defense spending targets, nothing in the North Atlantic Treaty actually compels or obligates Contracting Parties to spend 2% of GDP on defense, and NATO's annual report (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/nato-defense-spending-target/index.) noted that whilst only a minority of members met that target, there was a noticeable increase in defense spending across the board as a percentage of GDP and numerous members like Romania were close to hitting the target, so the idea or the notion that NATO members are just leeching off the US military spending isn't really true

Your link is broken. Even if I delete the "." at the end.
Thank you very much for providing a beautiful broken link.

Thanks for pointing that out, I think its fixed

[Medwind]

C'mon battle, you gotta know the brad needs to go, thing throws track all the time. When I was a dismount I was in one that caught fire, from some electrical problem. Trash man. We need more money, and we need to increase the size of personnel. They are handing out chapters like their candy, trying to get rid of people when we should be trying to increase retention, and get more people in, especially in our current world situation.

That's exactly why we should get rid of people. Less people mean more money is available for maintenance and new weapons. It also means it's easier to fire shit soldiers, and retain good ones.

Harsher discipline is necessary to improve soldiers. Lax units, shit leadership (incompetent, favoritest, etc.) needs to be clamped down on, or rooted out. E-4 mafia, or rather career E-4's have their place imo, so long as discipline is maintained, I don't think we need to kick them like we're doing. More numbers = better. Look at WWII, the Army alone had over 11 million soldiers. Obviously this can't, or rather shouldn't be implemented in our current situation, but having service be so rare nowadays isn't a good thing. It helps strengthen our people, gives youths discipline & purpose, instills pride etc. It's a good thing to have a large military, not just for power projection overseas, and combat ability, but also to improve our society, and to create the tons of civilian jobs that support the armed forces.

[Totally Not OEP]

Since 9/11, defense spending has only grown by 38% as compared to 61% for other types of spending; Defense outlays are at around 15% of federal spending, which is actually lower than it was before September 11th. Since 2010, defense spending as % of GDP has declined from 4.7% to 3.3% in 2015. The end result of this policy has been the near destruction of American military capabilities, in that we now have fewer combat-ready BCTs overall than invaded Iraq in 2003, the U.S. Air Force has been getting less training then the Russians and Chinese since at least 2013, and the U.S. Navy is in outright danger of collapse of capabilities.

In short, anybody advocating for less spending is dangerously misinformed, to put it as mildly as possible.

[Medwind]

Nope, but a NASA-military collaboration of an orbital bomber against DPRK would be epic and I support the Space Force. I must say, it should be cut only slightly. Keep the 2nd Amendment so that an invasion would be near impossible.

If you support the space force, you'd likely also have to support increased military spending, as it would be very expensive to implement, and we couldn't do it while also slashing the budget, while still maintaining a capable armed force.

[Medwind]

Since 9/11, defense spending has only grown by 38% as compared to 61% for other types of spending; Defense outlays are at around 15% of federal spending, which is actually lower than it was before September 11th. Since 2010, defense spending as % of GDP has declined from 4.7% to 3.3% in 2015. The end result of this policy has been the near destruction of American military capabilities, in that we now have fewer combat-ready BCTs overall than invaded Iraq in 2003, the U.S. Air Force has been getting less training then the Russians and Chinese since at least 2013, and the U.S. Navy is in outright danger of collapse of capabilities.

In short, anybody advocating for less spending is dangerously misinformed, to put it as mildly as possible.

Facts, I'm glad some people on NS see the truth. People seem to think we've just been pouring tons and tons of money into the military with no end, when in reality we've actually been cutting back. Meanwhile our rivals are ramping up, and our allies are stagnating or worse, across the board. They point to other issues as reasons why we shouldn't increase spending, but should we engage in armed conflict, and our current volunteer forces aren't up to the task due to their policies they, and their families will be regretting their choices when selective service hits em.

[Valkalan]

Harsher discipline is necessary to improve soldiers. Lax units, shit leadership (incompetent, favoritest, etc.) needs to be clamped down on, or rooted out. E-4 mafia, or rather career E-4's have their place imo, so long as discipline is maintained, I don't think we need to kick them like we're doing.

I partially agree, but still, we can't have people who suck at their MOS or leadership roles going around doing random useless stuff just to make things up for their NCOERs, and still getting promoted. I say we should let go of bad soldiers, and the safety nets that sustain them at great public expense, and use some of the savings to increase pay for the remaining force. The rest of the savings should be spent on maintenance, training, R&D and new weapons.

More numbers = better. Look at WWII, the Army alone had over 11 million soldiers.

Numbers don't mean as much in a modern conflict were cyber and electronic warfare can easily shut down communications and weapons systems. I'd say that we need to find a sweet spot, where you have the manpower to get things down, but not so many people that you're bogged down in bureaucracy and personnel expenses. I've watched Taliban and ISIS commanders walk away alive just because some useless officer on high needed to make up a job for himself, increasing layers of bureaucracy and keeping us from pulling the trigger. Bigger is not necessarily better, you just need to be big enough.

Obviously this can't, or rather shouldn't be implemented in our current situation, but having service be so rare nowadays isn't a good thing. It helps strengthen our people, gives youths discipline & purpose, instills pride etc. It's a good thing to have a large military, not just for power projection overseas, and combat ability, but also to improve our society, and to create the tons of civilian jobs that support the armed forces.

Instilling discipline, pride and purpose is not the business of the state. Having a smaller, more efficient and smarter force would allow for lower taxes, which would create jobs for those who don't serve in the armed forces.

[Medwind]

Just to clarify something, the OP talks about US allies meeting their treaty obligations, and some of the articles linked make reference to the NATO defense spending targets, nothing in the North Atlantic Treaty actually compels or obligates Contracting Parties to spend 2% of GDP on defense, and NATO's annual report (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/nato-defense-spending-target/index.html) noted that whilst only a minority of members met that target, there was a noticeable increase in defense spending across the board as a percentage of GDP and numerous members like Romania were close to hitting the target, so the idea or the notion that NATO members are just leeching off the US military spending isn't really true

No one said they were "leaching" however, they majority are not meeting their obligations, that is a fact, it's true they are not directly obligated too, per se. However it is highly encouraged. Why can Europe pay so much to house immigrants, and their welfare states, but can't meet such a low requirement, necessary for their own defense? If Estonia can meet the requirement, why can't nations like Germany?
https://amac.us/nato-members-carrying-w ... air-share/
https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-sh ... try-2017-2

[Medwind]

You bring up a lot of interesting points.

I partially agree, but still, we can't have people who suck at their MOS or leadership roles going around doing random useless stuff just to make things up for their NCOERs, and still getting promoted. I say we should let go of bad soldiers, and the safety nets that sustain them at great public expense, and use some of the savings to increase pay for the remaining force. The rest of the savings should be spent on maintenance, training, R&D and new weapons.

Not a bad idea at all, for a peacetime military at least. I still disagree though, it's better to have that extra manpower for when shit hits the fan, they'll either improve under fire, or die.

Numbers don't mean as much in a modern conflict were cyber and electronic warfare can easily shut down communications and weapons systems. I'd say that we need to find a sweet spot, where you have the manpower to get things down, but not so many people that you're bogged down in bureaucracy and personnel expenses. I've watched Taliban and ISIS commanders walk away alive just because some useless officer on high needed to make up a job for himself, increasing layers of bureaucracy and keeping us from pulling the trigger. Bigger is not necessarily better, you just need to be big enough.

Well, on that, I believe we need to implement the idea of total war with the enemy. Cut thru the bureaucracy, give more authority to NCO's to make field decisions, stop with the only fire when fired upon, it should always be weapons free. Get more officers leading from the front, etc. etc. The type of military your advocating for sounds great for dealing with insurgents, but how will we fare in such a scenario against a very large military, like N Korea, China, or Russia? It will likely be a war of attrition to some extent, if it should come to that. Having a large number of trained personnel ready to go would give us a big advantage in the early portion of the conflict, potentially allowing us to make gains early on. We have interests all over the world, it would be detrimental to our ability to ensure stability, and project power in certain regions to downsize. I'm not saying "fuck it lets let the broke dicks, kids, and granmas & grandpas in" I would actually argue for ensuring the standards are met. It's just better imo to maintain a large force. We would also still have elite units, (rangers, SF, MARSOC, (well, raiders I guess) PJ's etc. etc.) And, hell even those groups should be increased, not by lowering standards, but by offering more slots to both recruits, and those already in. If they meet the standard their good.

Instilling discipline, pride and purpose is not the business of the state. Having a smaller, more efficient and smarter force would allow for lower taxes, which would create jobs for those who don't serve in the armed forces.

This is true, although it certainly doesn't hurt.

[Bombadil]

Yes, let's all escalate to war footing, for what could possibly go wrong.. why not just wait till May 1st when all those commie countries are celebrating International Labour Day and then first strike nuke them all..

..at last we shall have peace..

Why do people have such a hard on for war.

[New haven america]

Yes, let's all escalate to war footing, for what could possibly go wrong.. why not just wait till May 1st when all those commie countries are celebrating International Labour Day and then first strike nuke them all..

..at last we shall have peace..

Why do people have such a hard on for war.

Humans are a naturally violent and dumb species, why else?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I think that America can stand to scale back its military spending. Its military is currently involved in countless foreign wars and foreign countries where it really has no business being. It's under no direct threat, so its huge military isn't really needed.

[Medwind]

Yes, let's all escalate to war footing, for what could possibly go wrong.. why not just wait till May 1st when all those commie countries are celebrating International Labour Day and then first strike nuke them all..

..at last we shall have peace..

Why do people have such a hard on for war.

Yes, because military spending = war? Because engaging your political opponents in war is wrong? Hitler would'da loved you, just let the enemy do whatever they want without them having to worry about repercussions. Osama Bin Laden would still be chillin in a cave if we were as anti military as you.

[Medwind]

I think that America can stand to scale back its military spending. Its military is currently involved in countless foreign wars and foreign countries where it really has no business being. It's under no direct threat, so its huge military isn't really needed.

Countless wars? Lmao, we're not currently participating in any declared wars. Even the places we're engaging in combat, they are very small scale battles, and very rare in reality, and they are nations, and organizations which are directly opposing the US & our way of life. Stop with the pacifist propaganda please.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I think that America can stand to scale back its military spending. Its military is currently involved in countless foreign wars and foreign countries where it really has no business being. It's under no direct threat, so its huge military isn't really needed.

Countless wars? Lmao, we're not currently participating in any declared wars. Even the places we're engaging in combat, they are very small scale battles, and very rare in reality, and they are nations, and organizations which are directly opposing the US & our way of life. Stop with the pacifist propaganda please.

The U.S has military missions in over 20 African countries, in the places where U.S troops are engaged in combat they may be small in scale, but they should be 0 in scale. The United States accounts for over a third of military spending in the world, so to claim it's barely in any conflicts right now is disingenuous. Yes, there are forces and organizations in the world which would like to see the fall of the USA, but they usually pose little risk, and will continue to do so even if the US lowers its spending a little. Pacifism's nice.

[Medwind]

Countless wars? Lmao, we're not currently participating in any declared wars. Even the places we're engaging in combat, they are very small scale battles, and very rare in reality, and they are nations, and organizations which are directly opposing the US & our way of life. Stop with the pacifist propaganda please.

The U.S has military missions in over 20 African countries, in the places where U.S troops are engaged in combat they may be small in scale, but they should be 0 in scale. The United States accounts for over a third of military spending in the world, so to claim it's barely in any conflicts right now is disingenuous. Yes, there are forces and organizations in the world which would like to see the fall of the USA, but they usually pose little risk, and will continue to do so even if the US lowers its spending a little. Pacifism's nice.

Less than 1% of US personnel see combat nowadays. That's too much for combating terrorism overseas? You're like the isolationists who didn't want the US to enter WWI, and WWII. Pacifism leads to the weakening of our military capabilities, and the increase of opponents willing to test us, and begin expanding in their respective areas. Pacifism is not "nice" it's a failed policy/ideology, that doesn't acknowledge the realities of the world, or politics.

[Duhon]

Arms races are bad and everyone involved should feel bad, but of course they wouldn't, because what are people if not mere statistics, mere kindling before the bloodlust of the blindly powerful?

/thread

[Andsed]

Not really we spend way to much on our military. The money can be used in much better ways. Like fixing our joke of an education system.

[East Meranopirus]

I think the case against increased military spending can be summarised by this:

[Havarland]

Not really we spend way to much on our military. The money can be used in much better ways. Like fixing our joke of an education system.

America has the best educational system in the world and each state is different.

[Havarland]

I think the case against increased military spending can be summarised by this:
(Image)

All of these countries are protected by The USA with the exceptions of China and Russia.
South Korea wouldn't even exist without the glorious and beautiful United States of America

[Duhon]

I think the case against increased military spending can be summarised by this:
(Image)

Clearly, that is a case for tripling military spending! No, gazillioning it!

[Duhon]

Not really we spend way to much on our military. The money can be used in much better ways. Like fixing our joke of an education system.

America has the best educational system in the world and each state is different.

What actual lol?