Defense Chief Urges Big Cuts In Military Spending 449
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says the Pentagon is wasting money it will no longer get, and focused on targets as diverse as the large number of generals and admirals, the layers of bureaucracy in the Pentagon, and the cost of military health care. 'The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, opened a gusher of defense spending that nearly doubled the base budget over the last decade,' Gates says. 'Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.' Gates, a Republican who was carried over as Defense Secretary from the Bush administration, has already canceled or trimmed 30 weapons programs with long-term savings predicted at $330 billion, but is now seeking to convert as much as 3% of spending from 'tail' to 'tooth' — military slang for converting spending from support services to combat forces. While this may not seem like a significant savings in the Pentagon's base budget, cuts of any size are certain to run hard against entrenched constituencies. Gates's critique of top-heavy headquarters overseas was underscored by the location of the speech — the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum. President Eisenhower, the supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II, warned the nation of the menacing influence of an emerging 'military-industrial complex' in his farewell address as president in 1960. 'Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,' said Eisenhower, 'so that security and liberty may prosper together.'"
Sad but true (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be spun as a Democratic administration not "supporting the troops", despite it being proposed by Gates, a holdover from a Republican administration. Much like how only Nixon could go to China, only a Republican can advocate cutting the defense budget (even if only a mere 2-3%) without being pilloried as near-treason.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
It definitely goes against the grain of what we've seen before now.
Stating the obvious usually does.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.
However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.
After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.
Re:In the same speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE (Score:5, Insightful)
"Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, not one, and we could explore space together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." -Bill Hicks
I like Ike (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading somewhere that Eisenhower was the president to most significantly cut the military budget in the past 60 years.
Anyone else who tried to do it was labeled as "making America weaker" or a giant wuss. But it was much harder to call the man who lead the largest amphibious invasion in history a pussy.
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In the same speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it has never come close to happening?
Or are you making the case that any of the previous administrations *cough*George W Bush*cough* could be considered a scientific-technological elite? Hell, President Obama just admitted to not knowing how to use an iPod or iPad. Yes, he has his Crackberry, but still...
Scientists routinely have to beg for funding, and NASA always seems to be on death's door for lack of funding.
Wake me when it is the other way around, and the military budget is round-off error for the scientific research one.
Sounds like a decent idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes sense to me. America is in a huge economic hole and desperately needs money pumped into infrastructure, health, job creation and other areas of government. America spends more on the military than other developed countries combined, so even a slight reduction in this should reap rewards in other areas. And if the US is smart about how it cuts spending, it does not even mean the military need become weaker as a result. Spend smarter, not 'harder', I guess you could say.
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
That is literally the only area of defense I support increasing funding for. I find it funny (and sad) that the people who most loudly proclaim to "support the troops" don't really give a shit about them once they're back.
I may personally want to cut defense spending and often not even respect the troops or what they're doing, but as misguided as I think they are, they sure as shit deserve support when they come home missing limbs or with PTSD. It's disgusting the way most soldiers end up due to the way we toss them aside once they've used up their usefulness.
This is why Obama kept Gates (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, If Robert Gates was to run for president (or even replace Biden) , I would vote for him.
Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE (Score:4, Insightful)
Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world
Having no military power makes about as much sense as having enough to obliterate the entire planet.
Is there still some people who believe nations live in peace because people are naturally kind and caring?
Military-Industrial Complex (Score:5, Insightful)
If you study the events leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the size and rampant spending of their military-industrial complex as it slowly bankrupted them for thirty years comes out on top. Everyone knew it existed, and everyone knew it would suck the nation dry before they could "win" the Cold War against the United States, but it was so entrenched in their economy that the means to measure and control it simply did not exist. It's interesting to see that Eisenhower noticed this disturbing trend fifty years ago. If the Soviet Union was bled dry in thirty years, how much longer can the United States survive the siphoning of hundreds of billions of dollars from their economy? Or is it already too late?
American citizens really must ask themselves what this spending has done for them. Access to foreign oil? Protection from terrorists? For a fraction of the trillions of dollars spent in the past decade on "defense", those issues could have been resolved virtually overnight. Instead, you have made a select group of people very rich and very powerful. Was it worth it?
Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said, it's hippie bullshit...but it is true. If you look at how much money the world collectively spends on trying to kill each other, we could instead SUPPORT each other many times over.
This is one of those "I know this will never happen, but this is how it should happen" kind of thoughts.
Military-industrial-CONGRESS complex (Score:5, Insightful)
In the councils of government [msu.edu], we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-congress complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
I know it's complex, but if you ignore the political implication aspect you're devaluing the entire notion.
Re:It may be hippie bullshit, but it's TRUE (Score:5, Insightful)
but it is true. If you look at how much money the world collectively spends on trying to kill each other, we could instead SUPPORT each other many times over.
This is one of those "I know this will never happen, but this is how it should happen" kind of thoughts.
Ohh, that kind of thoughts... Then why stop at the military?
If we were all kind and caring, there'd be no need for money or property, people would just work because it's necessary for teh common good of the society. We'd work as much as reasonably possible, while being happy. Then, the results of all that work would be distributed among the people, in a optimal way.
And, as to feed the entire population would only need the work of a minority, the rest could center on science, to investigate how to propagate the human collective to the stars.
In flying unicorns, genetically engineered for such purpose.
Re:In the same speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, anybody who doesn't know how to use an iPod or an iPad can't possibly make a significant contribution to science or technology.
Re:Budget cuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Um the military only earning power is body bags of the enemy. Gezz man The military is for protecting our country and our way of life,there not a for profit company. I want our men and women to have every tool available to them,no mater the cost too protect our country and way of life.
The military itself may not be "for profit", but MANY of the companies that supply the military with equipment have ties to various politicians and/or political groups. Iraq/Afghanistan weren't wars for oil, they were wars for profit in general...just like every other war in history.
Much of the technology we are currently using (fighter planes, as an example) serve no purpose over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bombers, sure...but planes designed for air-to-air combat? What, are they fighting the 47th Flying Sandies Brigade? Much of our military spending is still stuck in the Cold War. It needs to be drastically altered.
Re:Sounds like a decent idea (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if it does? The US already has the most powerful military in the world by an order of magnitude. What do we need all of this "power" for, anyway? We haven't had a real threat to the US since WWII.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we're doomed then. For the majority of USA "citizens," if it doesn't exist on American Idol, it doesn't exist.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed.
If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.
However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.
After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.
I firmly agree. One important point that Gates misses is that military personnel and civilian employees of the military often have much lower salaries than the equivalent private sector positions. One of the main reasons that many people make the choice to serve directly rather than as, say, a contractor is that the government promises job security and health benefits. In other words, many people are choosing stability over paycheck. If Gates is going to reduce the "stability" portion of that equation, then he will need to either increase the pay for those remaining or be prepared to hire more contractors to get the job done.
Re:Military healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
Soildiers, sailors and marines, as well as their families, earn everything they get. I would hardly call it an 'entitlement' program to give benefits to people that we ask to give up their youngest, healthiest years and spend them slogging through mud, risking their lives; or for their families to have to sit back and wait, wondering if their spouse/parent will come home in one piece, if not alive. I'm not saying this because of the "rah-rah-rah" stuff, I'm saying it because there is a world of difference between soldiers earning keep for themselves and their families and, say, welfare. "Back in the day" there might have been something to be said for perhaps a tiered system where those "in the rear with the gear", who were at less risk, didn't get as sweet a deal. But, as we're now in wars where there really aren't front lines and safe zones, where anyone is a potential enemy and you're just one grenade away from death, even at the supply depot, there really isn't a whole lot of difference now.
Re:Military healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Healthcare is considered a right in most of Europe. One of the big pushes has been to provide healthcare for everyone.
The military healthcare system for veterans and their families is an absolute necessity. Soldiers get payed crap, they deal with a job that curtails their constitutional freedoms, a job where they have to deal with the trauma of violence, death, killing and risk being killed/maimed themselves.
You want to cut the military pay roll? Fine. Reduce recruiting, let old soldiers retire. But each and every one of them needs what little help and compensation they do get and deserves more.
Re:Military healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it really makes sense to have a parallel health care system only for soldiers?
VA hospitals are a pretty good system, but they should really be for everyone, not just ex soldiers. Public health care is good for everyone, not just people who were in wars.
Re:Military healthcare (Score:3, Insightful)
It's voluntary. Nobody is asking anybody to do anything. If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't sign up. Why people sign up with families, I'll never understand. None of the "wars" that we are involved in are defensive, or even necessary. If enlistment drops by 90%, we'll still be able to DEFEND the country just fine.
Re:Military-Industrial Complex (Score:3, Insightful)
And you still would have a deficit of 1 trillion in the current budget even if you cut every last dollar out of defense. Get a sense of proportion. It will be the entitlement programs that bankrupt the U.S.
Re:Military healthcare (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad but true (Score:4, Insightful)
Well they wouldn't need lots of power to blind the enemy soldiers, but such weapons would be against the Geneva Convention so we'd have to crank up the power to vaporize or boil the brain to stay in line with the convention.
Re:Budget cuts (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:In the same speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, he never goofs off like that bastard GW Bush did:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7607947/Barack-Obama-plays-golf-eight-more-times-than-George-W-Bush.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Re:Military healthcare (Score:2, Insightful)
> The military is NOT the "largest entitlement program in the country." It's not even fucking CLOSE.
Your link refutes your argument. Your link refers to three large entitlement programs with approximately the same size as military spending. These numbers are from your link:
* $715 billion for military spending ("some 20 percent of the budget")
* $708 billion for social security ("another 20 percent of the budget")
* $753 billion for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP ("together account for 21 percent of the budget")
Your own source states that military spending exceeds social security spending (albeit by just 1%), medicare, medicaid, and CHIP. Only by combining *all* of them can you justify your bizarre "not even fucking CLOSE" claim. It's like saying that Bill Gates was never one of the highest paid employees of Microsoft because there were many other employees whose *combined* salary exceeded his.
In addition, "military spending" above specifically excludes veterans benefits, but if we're talking about entitlements they should clearly be included. Even excluding that, military spending--using your own data--is slightly larger than spending on social security, the largest of entitlement programs.
> Your comment makes me rage. If you were close enough I kick you in the junk
> so hard your grandchildren would still be feeling it...if you were still capable of having them.
I suggest consulting your own sources before getting so angry you consider assault.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure defense is a priority. But why do we need to spend so many billions on stealth jets when our number one enemy is planting IODs and have absolutely no air defense? Why do we need to have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined when nobody offers anything close to a serious threat to our naval forces? Why do we need so many bases around the world when we effectively have mobile bases (carriers) that we can send virtually anywhere?
We can do a hell of a lot more with a billion dollars spent on intelligence than a billion dollars spent on a jet. But a billion dollars spent on intelligence won't provide nice, high-paying jobs in dozens of congressional districts. Building a jet will so it will always get the higher priority.
Note: The US currently has 11 carriers and is building more. Russia has one functional carrier. China bought an antiquated one from Russia and turned it into a casino but may be building two of its own. France has one as does Spain. The next largest fleet of carriers in the world after the US? The UK with 3 old carriers.
Re: National Debt? (Score:5, Insightful)
I put it to you that you are already bankrupt from overspending for the past 30 years. If the USA wasn't a nation that can just keep printing more money when required, or spend itself trillions into the hole, it would have been bankrupt years ago.
The Military/Industrial Complex that Eisenhower was warning against, got into power, and its been reaping massive fortunes for its Corporate Owners for that entire time. Look at Haliburton most recently.
Blackwater - when did the US citizenry decide it was actually okay for the country to hire mercenaries, and in fact let them equip themselves with a private airforce etc? Billions lost there.
Its long since past time for these cuts to be made - and in fact if the system were forced to trim itself down to ensure the "Tooth" part of the equation is still effective it would probably be very effective still - but the US budget is firmly in the grasp of the corporations that are making billions in profits for their owners off of defense spending, and the Military who naturally want all the high-tech tools and manpower they can get so they can be as effective as possible. You are not going to break that grip, ever. The politicians who are in office, BELONG to those companies, and if they want to keep their jobs, must keep supporting them I am afraid.
Re:Military-Industrial Complex (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Military healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
*I* think Social Security and other entitlements are a waste of money, but that's because I'm 27 and not going to see a penny of it.
People have been wringing their hands over the looming demise of Social Security since before you were born.
The only real threat of you not getting your investment back is if the politicians find enough excuses to dip into the kitty for other uses, or if the people who want to transfer the whole kitty into the stock market finally get their way.
Re:In the same speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh lord, the "elite" word has been dragged out again.
I would always rather have the academic elite running things, than ordinary slobs like most of America. Who would you rather have representing America, some NASCAR watching slob with a high school degree who can barely read at a 7th grade level (on the rare he actually chooses to read), who receives all of his "wisdom" from television news, and talk radio, and some mega-commercial-church pulpit; or someone with many years of education, who tries to rely on handed down wisdom from people much smarter than him?
Especially true in science. The scientific opinion of 90% of Amercians is worth absolutely nothing, as opposed to... you know... the opinions of actual scientists.
Reading Ike's entire speech (Score:3, Insightful)
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. "
I wonder if we will see similar thinking with respect to funding science?
-cluge
Re: Military healthcare (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.iousathemovie.com/ [iousathemovie.com]
Re:Military healthcare (Score:3, Insightful)
"VA hospitals are a pretty good system" ...compared to the average American hospital.
(As good as the best hospital? No.)
Re:Military healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
if we don't provide what they want AARP is going to come wielding pitchforks on their golf carts?
Pretty much. Social programs keep human misery below the "bloody uprising" threshold, they are as important to social stability as police and fire services.
Re:Military-Industrial Complex (Score:1, Insightful)
Considering that defense involves killing people, and entitlements involve helping them, I'm still okay with cutting defense spending.
Re:In the same speech (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a lot sexier to talk about Harrison Bergeron-style 50-pound encroachments on our FREEDOM! than concede 14 ounces of styrofoam probably prevents thousands of cases of brain injury a year.
As with all of these arguments, the FREEDOM! to ride a bike without a "goddamn-helmet-my-parents-didn't-have-to-wear" is an absolute and self-sufficient good, and the children that my get injured or die as a result are immaterial, since they aren't the speaker and therefore, from a strictly libertarian point of view, their suffering is irrelevant and none of anybody's business.
Such is the way people rationalize the misery of their fellow men, and turn it into a virtue.
Re: Military healthcare (Score:1, Insightful)
The underpayment is already here.
I know a few dozen people who paid into SS their whole lives. How much do they get a month? About 300 bucks.
They saved for years. Had a good stash of money (401k ect). They get that from the government. What happened was the inflation from 1975 till now happened. It TOTALLY flattened what they were going to get. Back in 1975 300 a month was pretty sweet money. Now its not enough.
My father who had a 100k pension plan from a company will get 50k of it. That was probably enough to retire decently in 1980 (when he retired from that company). Now you would be lucky to make that stretch out 3 years.
It doesnt matter. EVEN if I get the money back from SS. By the time I get it the money will be so devalued its not worth it.
Ever wonder why the gov lets inflation in the 2-10% range? Because they have HUGE obligations. Inflation erodes those obligations.
Re:I like Ike (Score:3, Insightful)
Some jackass will always be willing to take money for such a cause.
Remember triple amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland?
They have no shame.
Being a military vet doesn't neccessarily mean you support a strong defense, or even support a military at all. Howard Zinn, after all, was a decorated AAF veteran.
And ultimately, while you're blaming "them"... Republican strategists... ultimately it was the voters of Georgia that made the decision, not "them". The fact is, Cleland was becoming increasingly liberal (see his votes on ANWR, abortion, etc) in an increasingly conservative state.
If you have a problem with the vote, take it up with the voters.
Re:Military healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm writing this in Arlington, Virginia, and I believe that most of the U.S. military's overseas missions, such as the war on Iraq, are neither defensive nor necessary.
Re:Sad but true (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, one reason to consider the war in Iraq failed is that they never did find those WMDs. Sure, they ousted Saddam Hussein, but that wasn't the original stated goal of the war (ok, we all know that was the real reason, and the WMDs were just a lie), so saying that the war is won because Saddam Hussein has been executed is kind of like shooting at the side of a barn, then walking up and painting a target around the hole. As for Afghanistan... remind me, what prison are they holding Bin Laden in now? Oh, right, they're not.
Obviously, I'm being harsh on them for unrealistic things. The WMDS were just a vaporous threat invented to justify a war and catching Bin Laden alive was a pipe dream. Those facts didn't stop the President and others in authority making all kinds of grandiose declarations, goals and promises. So, in the end, some of us actually hold them to their lies.
Not Quite (Score:5, Insightful)
Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years.
No, the cost of individual weapons systems has been rising at an unsustainable rate. Military spending is a fraction of what it was during it's peacetime highs, when it dominated federal spending in the 50's and 60's. Bush the Elder made big cuts to the military budget, and Bill Clinton made even bigger cuts. Even at the height of our military force structure during the Reagan years, the military was a fraction of what it was under Ike, Kennedy, and Johnson.
What we're getting isn't more military spending, but less bang for our military buck, by buying fewer weapons. We're spending about the same, GDP-wise. It's just that individual ships, planes, etc, cost more, so we're buying less of them. We bought 800 F-15's. We replaced them with 187 F-22's. Same buck. Less bang, even though the individual weapons are more capable. There's simply no way one F-22 can replace 4 F-15's in the real world, no matter what Lockheed's marketing department says.
By far the largest and most bloated parts of the federal budget are the entitlements... Social Security, Medicare, etc. They'll bankrupt us long before military spending would. And while you can cut military spending, by law, you can't cut SS and Medicare, only their rates of growth.
Re:In the same speech (Score:1, Insightful)
The quote should clearly be understood as a warning about the disappearance of academic freedom and inherent bias in the increasingly capitalized research environment, in my humble opinion.
Re:In the same speech (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?
Oh, you mean the collective pipe-dream and fictional character used by our former elites in their own nearly-purely-academic works (we now call them "founding fathers" and "philosophers", I believe?) Said individuals do exist, but they're as rare as they ever were. Nostalgia's a bitch.
Re: Military healthcare (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, but only if you define "pyramid scheme" in such a way that Social Security is not one.
If you are anyone -- including someone currently on Social Security -- and expect to get a comfy retirement from Social Security, you are guaranteed to be disappointed. Social Security is not setup to provide a comfortable retirement, it is setup to provide a minimal safety-net pension to mitigate (not eliminate) poverty among those who have worked but can no longer do so due to age or disability.
Weak "means testing" is already implemented, since Social Security benefits are taxable income if your total income is above a certain point.
For the reasons in the preceding response, SS beneficiaries with other sources of income already get less money from Social Security. Since Social Security is insurance against poverty due to age or disability, this makes sense.
This is scaremongering with no basis in reality.
Re:Trim Base Budgets or Base Closure? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to consider the strategic value of these bases as well. Hawaii is important as a site for a naval base because of its location. Having a cheaper-to-run naval base on the coast of Florida will be worth squat if we ever get into it with China.
Yes, cost of operation is something to consider -- but the location-dependent utility of the base must also be considered.
Re:Sounds like a decent idea (Score:5, Insightful)
In a straight up fight(no nukes) the USA would lose to china definitely
Very doubtful. For starters, in a China-U.S. fight, it would definitely all happen on Chinese territory, simply because China doesn't have any means to project its force as far as U.S. Technologically, U.S. is superior - best Chinese tech is one generation behind. China has an edge in manpower, but that's about it.
and probably Russia(it's close enough to wonder)
As a Russian whose father is a retired Russian (and before that, Soviet) army major, I can tell you - from his words as well as my observations - that Russian army, in today's conditions, would stand a snowball's chance in hell against U.S., even if the latter would invade Russian soil. Russian army is mostly of conscripts, and they are poorly trained and poorly fed. While there are a few nice shiny toys such as Tu-160 and S-400, they are few and far in between, and the bulk of Russian forces is equipped with weapons dating back to 70s or so, and not significantly upgraded since then. What's worse is that equipment has been poorly maintained, and the count of planes, tanks etc on paper simply doesn't represent the real number of operational units.
The other big deal is logistics, and things are even worse there. E.g. fuel supply would be a major headache for Russia for any prolonged warfare - ironically, given its status as an "oil superpower".
Now, if U.S. would try to occupy and hold Russia like they're doing to Iraq, then it would get messy for them real quick due to guerrilla warfare, of which Russia has ample past experience to draw from, and fitting conditions (e.g. huge swathes of forested terrain; low-quality roads further degraded by seasonal weather). But that's a very different story, which doesn't have much to do with army strength as such.
Re:In the same speech (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't remember anyone criticizing Bush about golf.
I remember criticizing him for spending 487 days of his presidency at Camp David, and ANOTHER 490 days at his "ranch" in Texas.
That's 33.46% of his ENTIRE PRESIDENCY (2920 days), for those of you keeping score.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4728085-503544.html [cbsnews.com]
Re:Military healthcare (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I was merely disagreeing with Shakrai's comment, which was pretty limited in scope. Sure, I agree that if you're going to field an army that you'd better make sure its soldiers don't have to worry about whether their families have food on the table or their kids can go to the doctor when they get sick. (But that's also part of why I don't think we should field so many unnecessary armies in the first place.)
Re:Not Quite (Score:3, Insightful)
And while you can cut military spending, by law, you can't cut SS and Medicare, only their rates of growth.
Please don't propagate this bullshit. You can cut SS/Medicare and just about anything else by law or otherwise. Another option is to simply not fund something. Whatever law one Congress passes, another Congress - or even the same Congress - can revoke. Why would you think otherwise?
Re:In the same speech (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there ought to be a law requiring that women be virtuous and put out enough to keep men from being so miserable.
Or just end the prohibition on doing it for money..
The war on sex is one of the major causes, if not THE major cause of most of our psychoses.
Re:Military healthcare (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you are saying is that the people who are closest to horrible tragedy often have their judgment clouded by the desire for revenge that goes along with such atrocities, even to the point of not being able to make rational decisions?
Agreed, that happens, and its why hot heads make bad policy. Its why we should outlaw naming bills after murdered children. Its why we need to roll back the majority of post-9/11 changes. Its why the civil libertarians need to yell the loudest when everyone else is the most sure that its time to give up some liberty.
-Steve
Re: Military healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless your workforce continued to increase, social security was never sustainable anyway. It was only possible over the past 40 years because of the baby boomers. Without another similar increase in workers, and another one every 40 years, it'd be impossible for the taxes collected to keep up with the people retiring, especially as they're also living longer.
Re:In the same speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, you're right. From now on, the kids are wearing life vests in the bath tub. And we're all moving to bottom floor to avoid the stairs. Better put the chain guard back on the Harley.. Wouldn't want to catch my bell bottoms.. Being told to "be safe" is one thing. Being told how is very different. Especially when the "how" might be based on economic profit for a specific "elite".
Re:Gates and the defense contractors (Score:2, Insightful)
I think a far more comprehensive and cost effective, albeit most unlikely, method is to simply revise your Imperial doctrine of 'Pax Americana' before it leads you inevitably down the same path as the Roman Empire before you.
US spends over twice as much on "defense" as all of the other nations of the world combined, maintains a network of "forward bases" in 135 counties (as of 2008) out of 194 that the US foreign department recognizes (that's over 69%) and wages wars of naked aggression whenever it pleases against whomever it pleases.
And so, as military spending was always a primary method of maintenance of all empires past, whining about how the Imperial Elite is getting rich off the very thing they've worked so hard to create in order to get power and riches is rather pathetically hypocritical on the part of an "upstanding" Imperial Citizen, like yourself. But then again, moaning about military expenditures, whilst watching the "games" in the Coliseum was also a favourite past-time of your Roman predecessors.
Re:Should have been done long ago... (Score:1, Insightful)
why invade iraq after 9/11?
Re: Military healthcare (Score:3, Insightful)
SocSec would be eminently sustainable if it were pegged to the average life expectancy with a 5 year lag between the rate and when it was implemented. Which is currently over 77 years old.
Re:In the same speech (Score:1, Insightful)
2. Americans can have sex
3. ???
4. Profit!
Seriously though, why is it still illegal? People like to have sex, people like to make money (or at least do it to pay the bills). (Offtopic, yes I know)
Re:Military-Industrial Complex (Score:3, Insightful)
Tax revenues are lower at the moment due to the recession. Spending is higher at the moment due to stimulus spending due to the recession.
Cutting a few hundred billion in wasted military expense does not balance the budget this year, but it does once revenues and expense return to non-recession levels.
Re:Gates and the defense contractors (Score:4, Insightful)
This presumes that 1 F35 can perform the work of 2.7 SHs in many areas.
It can in most areas.
With less available aircraft, it will be more difficult to maintain combat readiness for a squadron during operations
This is a concern I also share. Just the same, this aircraft is not forcing retirement SHs. As such, when numbers matter, they are still available. Also keep in mind, one of the reasons why squadrons are sent out is to provide protection and air superiority for their brethren. In the case of planes like the F22 and F35, this requirements for an extra squadron doesn't necessarily exist. This in turn also reduces the number of aircraft which would otherwise be required in theater. And if they are otherwise available, it frees them up to be tasked where numbers might still be required.
The main problem with the F35 is its cost/capability compared to existing aircraft (F22, F15, F16, SH) and how effective it is likely to be against future air threats. It is unlikely that the F35 will be able to safely operate in airspace defended by Russian S300 or S400 SAM
I encourage you to review tactics. Beyond, I doubt such missiles are anywhere near such a potent threat you believe it to be. You need to remember, many aircraft, left than a couple miles away, typically have much difficulty maintaining a radar lock on F35s and especially F22s. Beyond that, these aircraft also have various jamming capabilities should threats require it.
You also need to keep in mind the effective range of such weapon systems is actually much, much smaller verses nimble targets. Against a fighter, I doubt they are effective against targets over half their stated range against fighters. Furthermore, unless system systems are within twenty miles or so, I doubt they'd even have much hope of even identifying an F35, let alone an F22, as a threat, let a lone a target. This combined with the bag of tactics currently employed doesn't, IMOHO, a significant threat.
Once the US has done this and gained air superiority, the F35 becomes an overpriced bomb truck
It doesn't sound like you understand what an F35 is. It is an air superiority fighter. First and foremost. Your argument is that by not allowing it to serve its primary role it has no value. We'll of course that's true. But that doesn't make your assessment accurate. You need to understand all pilots who have flown against the F35 and especially the F22 are scared shitless of them; and with good reason. Even our own F35/F22 pilots, when flying our other conventional aircraft, are lucky to actually see the aircraft before they are "dead." To say such aircraft will never be used as their primary role means the US is without conflict in the world.
Basically the F35s problem is that it's too ineffective against future peer or near-peer level enemies and too expensive to use in permissive air environments and the F35 program needs to be killed for this reason.
Basically, no one else in the world can even afford to create a "near-peer", let alone a "peer". And when such an aircraft is created in fifty years from now, our existing fleet will have served their purpose wonderfully.
You need to keep in mind, most of the world is only able to design, develop, test, and deploy aircraft in the league of the SH. And frankly, the SH doesn't hold a candle to the aircraft we're talking about. Long story short, we're easily decades away before the US need even worry about a real "near-peer" threat from any other power in the world; let alone a "peer" level threat.
I don't think you fully appreciate the technological leap in capabilities the F22 and F35 represent. Just the same, don't get me wrong, I too still have some reservations about actual fielded costs of the F35. If successful, its a win-win. If not, its still arguably a win - albeit just not at the budget we'd all hope for.